Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union
Versus
Tata Memorial Centre & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6394 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) NO. 7230 of 2009)
Decided on : 09-08-2010
(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(a) and section 2(a)(i), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 – Appropriate Government – Industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government – Appropriate Government is Central Government – In all other cases it is State Government – “Under the authority …” implies a principal-agent relationship – Even though entire share of a company may be held by Central Government and it may be having all pervasive control including directions for day to day functioning, yet it cannot be said to be carried under authority of Central Government – The real authority flows from articles and memorandum of the company allowing those powers to the Central Government – Similarly, instrumentalities of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be held to be agents of their respective Government. (Para 17, 22, 23, 37)
(2001) 7 SCC 1; (1969) 3 SCR, 1995; (1975) 4 SCC 679; 1984 (Supp) SCC 443; (1985) 2 SCC 294; (1979) 3 SCC 489; (1981) 1 SCC 722 – Relied upon
AIR 1952 Calcutta 6 – Referred
(1997) 9 SCC 377 – Distinguished
(c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(a) and Section 2 (3), Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTP and PULP Act) – Appropriate Government – ID Act is an act for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes – MRTP and PULP Act 1971 is for recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings – Merely by discharging public functions and duties the government companies / corporations and societies do not become agents of the Central/State Government. (Para 46, 50)
(d) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(a) and Section 2 (3), Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTP and PULP Act)– Tata Memorial Centre – Appropriate Government – Tests – Vesting of property, and independence of the Hospital and the Research Centre in control and management – Vesting in Governing Council and not in the Society or Trust – Management and control of the Hospital and the Research Centre is completely with the Society – The Governing Council has been exercising executive powers of employer – Not `under the control’ of the Central Government – Held, appropriate Government for the purposes of ID Act, 1947 and MRTP and PULP Act, 1971 is the State Government – Respondents never disputing application of MRTP and PULP Act, 1971 – MRTP and PULP Act, 1971 applies. (Para 51, 55, 59, 60, 62)
AIR 1962 SC 458; AIR 2003 SC 3397; 31 L.J. (1862) 218; (1901) 1 KB 381 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the Division Bench has held that for the first respondent establishment, the Central Government was the `appropriate government’ for the purposes of application of Section 2(3) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 read with Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The Division Bench has held that the State Government was not the `appropriate government’ for this purpose. Consequently the Applications concerned in the present matter filed under the MRTU and PULP Act, namely the Application of the second respondent for cancellation of the status of the applicant as the recognized union under respondent No. 1, and Application for substitution of second respondent in place of the appellant, as the recognized union, were held to be non-maintainable.
The appellant is aggrieved by the finding that the State Government is not the appropriate government and that the MRTU and PULP Act has no application to the first respondent establishment. It will result into automatic denial of its status as the recognized union under the MRTU and PULP Act and also into denial of the remedies available to the appellant and to the employees, of the first respondent, (against unfair labour practices, if any).
Finding of the Court:
The two Applications filed by respondent No. 2 will have to be held as maintainable under MRTU and PULP Act. The order of the Industrial Court holding them to be maintainable but dismissing them on merits is held to be correct.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
The legal issue at hand pertains to determining whether the Tata Memorial Centre functions under the authority of the Central Government or operates as an independent entity, which directly impacts which government is considered the "appropriate government" for the purposes of industrial dispute resolution and trade union recognition.
The key considerations involve the nature of the control and management of the Centre, the vesting of property, and the operational autonomy of the institution. The facts indicate that although the property was initially transferred to the Central Government and the Centre is listed under the rules for allocation of government business, the actual management and control are exercised by the Governing Council of the Society, which functions independently. The evidence shows that the Society manages day-to-day operations without interference from the Central Government, and the employees are not government servants.
Furthermore, the property is deemed to be vested in the Governing Council, and the institution’s functions are carried out with significant autonomy. The agreement and legal arrangements suggest that the Centre was established as an independent society with its own management structure, rather than as a direct arm of the Central Government.
Therefore, based on the legal principles governing the interpretation of "industry" and "appropriate government," and considering the specific facts related to property vesting, control, and operational independence, the appropriate government for the Tata Memorial Centre is the State Government. This conclusion aligns with the criteria that the industry is not carried on under the authority of the Central Government, but rather functions independently under its own governance.
This determination affects the maintainability of certain applications and recognition of trade unions under relevant statutes, with the final ruling affirming that the State Government is the appropriate authority for the Centre, and that the applications filed under the relevant labour laws are maintainable.
Judgment :-
Gokhale, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 10.2.2009 in Appeal No.133 of 2002 arising out of Writ Petition No. 2148 of 2001, whereby the Division Bench has held that for the first respondent establishment, the Central Government was the `appropriate government' for the purposes of application of Section 2(3) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act) read with Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act). The Division Bench has held that the State Government was not the `appropriate government' for this purpose. Consequently the Applications concerned in the present matter filed under the MRTU and PULP Act, namely the Application of the second respondent for cancellation of the status of the applicant as the recognized union under respondent No. 1, and Application for substitution of second respondent in place of the appellant, as the recognized union, were held to be non-maintainable. The appellant is aggrieved by the finding that the State Government is not the appropriate government and that the MRTU and PULP Act has no application to the first respondent establishment. It will result into automatic denial of its status as the recognized union under the MRTU and PULP Act and also into denial of the remedies available to the appellant and to the employees, of the first respondent, (against unfair labour practices, if any) and hence this appeal by special leave. The right of the appellant to represent the employees of the first respondent (numbering over 1300) is thus, at stake.
3. The appellant is a Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 and the employees of the first respondent are its members. It is already registered under Chapter III of the above referred MRTU and PULP Act as the recognized union for the employees under the first respondent by an order passed way back on 2.12.1985 by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Respondent No.2 `Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana' (i.e. workers association) is another trade union functioning under the first respondent. By filing Application MRTU No. 15 of 1994 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the respondent No. 2 sought cancellation of the recognition of the appellant union under Section 13 of the MRTU and PULP Act. Thereafter by filing another Application MRTU No.16 of 1994, the second respondent sought its own recognition in place of the appellant union under Section 14 of the MRTU and PULP Act. Both these Applications Nos. 15 and 16 of 1994 were heard together. Oral and documentary evidence was led by parties. The report of the Investigating officer appointed for the verification of the membership of the two trade unions was considered. The first respondent in its written statement raised an objection to the maintainability of these proceedings under MRTU and PULP Act by submitting that the `appropriate government' for the first respondent was the Central Government and not the State Government, and hence, the proceedings under the MRTU and PULP, were not maintainable.
4. The Application (MRTU) 15 of 1994 had been filed on the footing that the registration of the appellant as a trade union itself had been cancelled by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The appellant pointed out to the Industrial Court that the order of cancellation was misconceived and had in fact been stayed by the Bombay High Court by its order passed in the Writ Petition No. 452 of 1994. Thereupon, the second respondent conceded this position and filed a pursis (memo) that Application (MRTU) No. 15 of 1994 be allowed to be withdrawn. The Industrial Court disposed of the two proceedings by its common judgment and order dated 29.6.2001. In that order it recorded that Application MRTU No. 15 of 1994 w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
