VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition is filed by one of the workers' union of the respondent no.2/employer/Food Corporation of India(FCI). Petitioner is called as FCI handling union. Another union is FCI workers' union, and which is respondent no.4 to this petition. Petitioner seeks quashing of the circular nos. 7/2006 and 11/2007 dated 23.2.2006 and 20.11.2007 respectively issued by respondent no.2, and also for setting aside of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 7.11.2007 entered into between the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.2. In sum and substance, the disputes are with respect to method of promotion. Before the impugned circulars and the settlement came into effect, promotion was being effected gang - wise. After the issuance of circulars and the settlement dated 7.11.2007, promotions are to be made depot -wise. As a result of implementation of the impugned circulars, various gangs stand merged in the depots in which they were working in the respondent no.2.
(2.)ON behalf of the petitioner two principal grounds have been urged to claim the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. First ground is that the settlement dated 7.11.2007 (and on which the circular dated 20.11.2007 was issued) entered into between the respondent no.4 and respondent no.2/employer is illegal because respondent no.4 -union is not a majority union and which is required by Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For this purpose, reliance is placed by the petitioner upon para 17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corpn., A.P.Ltd. and others Vs. P.Ramachandra Rao & Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 623. In fact, para -17 of the judgment in the case of Transmission Corpn. (supra) reproduces the para of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. 6 (1991) 1 SCC 4. The second ground which is urged is that the settlement dated 7.11.2007 falls foul of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 inasmuch as the settlement has been signed by the Assistant Secretary whereas it could have been signed only by a President or Vice President or a Secretary or a General Secretary or any other officer authorized by President and Secretary of the union.
On behalf of counsels for respondent nos. 2 and 4, who have argued a common case, it is pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds: -

(i) Petition is barred by delay and laches because the impugned circulars and the settlement issued in 2006/2007 have been implemented for various depots in various States up to July, 2008, but this petition is filed only in May, 2010. (ii) Alongwith the argument as stated in sub -para -(i) above, the principle of estoppel is also pressed, and which is a facet of the first argument. (iii) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed because petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands because at the time of filing this petition, in May 2010 and obtaining interim orders petitioner had concealed the facts that the impugned circulars and the settlement dated 7.11.2007 stood implemented to quite an extent in various States before the petitioner raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act in about July 2008. (iv) Petitioner has accepted, by not challenging, the finality of the decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, communicated vide letter dated 15.11.2007, and which was also sent to the petitioner informing : "Re -organization/merger of Labour Gangs in the Depot is a policy matter of the Management. Hence, no industrial dispute subsists". (v) The respondent no.4 -union is a majority union, and so stated by the respondent no.2 in its additional affidavit dated 12.9.2011. (vi) The provision of Rule 58 cannot be read to frustrate the object of the rule inasmuch as any office bearer of the union can sign once there are disputes in the union and elections have to take place, and which is the position emerging in the present case, because, dispute of elections to the union -respondent no.4 was subject matter of certain civil suits and appellate proceedings wherein a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as a Court Commissioner. While arguing that Rule 58 has to be read as per the legislative intent, it is argued that the same should be treated as directory and not mandatory once the settlement is otherwise accepted and not disputed by the union in question.

(3.)IN my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition and in fact, the writ petition is a clear abuse of the process of law. I will now deal with each of the arguments which have been urged on behalf of the petitioner and also to the responses/arguments urged on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4.