In a legal setback to NEEPCO, the Meghalaya High Court has struck down Rule 8 (iii) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 which stipulated that no NEEPCO employees shall seek membership of any registered trade union or indulge in trade union activities.
The High Court bench of Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew in a verdict passed today said that the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules are not statutory rules, and this position is undisputed as the power to make by-laws is conferred by the Memorandum and Articles of Associations of the Company upon the Board.
The court also said that the supervisory staff who though may be restricted from joining the workers union, however, cannot be deprived of the right of forming and becoming members of their own trade union.
The High Court also struck down Rule 8 (iii) as it is found to offend Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
According to the High Court, the NEEPCO is well within its rights to classify its employees into two categories – workmen and non-workmen with the objective to apply the provision of various industrial laws to the workmen and confer benefit upon them.
“This should not mean however, that the management cadre employees cannot form unions of their own and engage in trade unions activities for the benefit of its members,” the court said.
The brief facts of the case are that the NEEPCO by an office order dated April 22, 2021 in the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 governing all employees, had inserted Sub-Rule (iii) in Rule 8 of the said Rules which stipulated that no employees to whom the said Rules apply shall seek membership of any registered trade union or indulge in trade union activities.
The petitioners being the Employees Workers Union in the NEEPCO and its office bearers, being aggrieved by the amendment have challenged the same on the core ground that Rule 8 (iii) suppresses the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and as such have prayed the court for setting aside and quashing the sub-rule.
