Authorities cannot discriminatorily deny trade union facilities to de-recognized unions while extending them to similarly situated unions.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondent authority’s decision to prohibit correspondence with the petitioner union while extending facilities to other similarly situated de-recognised unions is discriminatory and biased.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the impugned order was inherently biased and legally unsustainable

It also directed

The High Court quashed and set aside the office order dated 19th March 2026

The respondent authorities were directed to extend the same limited Trade Union facilities to the petitioners as are currently provided to the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation

The writ application was disposed of with immediate effect

01Facts

The petitioners, All India Postal Employees Union (AIPEU) Group ‘C’, challenged an office order dated 19th March 2026 issued by the Assistant Director General (SR & Legal)

¶ 1

Following their de-recognition, the respondent authority issued a directive to all Postal Circles and Divisions to cease all correspondence with the National Federation of Postal Employees (NFPE) and the AIPEU Group ‘C’, viewing non-compliance seriously

¶ 2

The petitioners sought parity with another de-recognised body, the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation (BPEF), which had been granted limited Trade Union facilities—including channels of communication, meetings with senior officers, and office accommodation—via departmental circulars dated 2015, 2018, and 2019

¶ 3-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondent authority’s decision to prohibit correspondence with the petitioner union while extending facilities to other similarly situated de-recognised unions is discriminatory and biased.

¶ 7-12

ii.2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same limited Trade Union facilities as extended to the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation.

¶ 3 / para. 15

03Law Applied

The court applied the Constitutional principles of the Right to Equality and the Principle of Natural Justice against arbitrary state action

¶ 12

The court further integrated precedents from its own jurisdiction, namely Asit Bangabash & Ors. vs. Union of India and All India Postal Employees Union Group -C & Anr. vs. Union of India, which addressed the legal effects of withdrawal of recognition and the subsequent entitlement to facilities

¶ 8

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation (BPEF) and its affiliates, despite being de-recognised, continued to enjoy several Trade Union facilities under various departmental orders

¶ 11

The Court found that the petitioner union stood on the "same footing" as the BPEF

¶ 12

Consequently, the impugned order dated 19th March 2026, which specifically targeted the petitioners by cutting off communication, demonstrated a "clear bias" and constituted an "abuse of the process of law"

¶ 12-13

The Court reasoned that the authorities cannot selectively deny facilities to one de-recognised union while granting them to another, as such conduct violates the interest of justice and the principle of parity

¶ 13

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the impugned order was inherently biased and legally unsustainable

¶ 13

The High Court quashed and set aside the office order dated 19th March 2026

¶ 14

The respondent authorities were directed to extend the same limited Trade Union facilities to the petitioners as are currently provided to the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation

¶ 15

The writ application was disposed of with immediate effect

¶ 16

LawLens.Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF