Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
Ushakiron Movies Ltd., represented by its Vice President HR, Mr. A. Gopala Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Registrar of Trade Union-cum-Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone and another - Respondent
Writ Petition No.17240 of 2009
Decided on : 23-12-2015
For the Petitioner: Sri C. R. Sridharan, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent:GP for Labour., Sri Satya Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Trade Unions Act, 1926 – Section 10 – Cancellation of Registration of said Union – Sought for directing Respondent No.1 duly constituted Registrar under Act, 1926, to perform his statutory duty to investigate into complaint made against the Respondent No.2 and take appropriate steps under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the cancellation of the Registration of the said Union – Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Ramoji Film City is a township, in which, even according to 1st respondent/Labour Department, as many as 15 establishments are housed and the said fact is also evident from the report submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the Joint Commissioner of Labour. Even the report with observations submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by his letter to the Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Minimum Wages Act also evidences the said fact. The petitioner company was having 1716 employees as on 31.01.2009. The increase in the number of employees to 3014 at present had occasioned on account of the merger of nine (9) organisations into the petitioner company. The merged organisations in the petitioner company are as under – Held, if it so desires and if so advised, may, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, submit an application afresh with all its submissions to the Registrar concerned under the Trade Unions Act with a request to withdraw or cancel the registration of the 2nd respondent Trade Union. On receipt of such application, the Registrar concerned shall take up that application and also the representations of the employees already submitted and proceed to make a due enquiry in strict accordance with the procedure established by law and make a decision in regard to either withdrawal or cancellation of the registration of the 2nd respondent Trade Union as contemplated under law. It is made clear that even in the absence of any representation submitted by the writ petitioner afresh, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the aforesaid representations of the employees in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is made clear that the Registrar shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations, if any, in this order as this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and has not expressed any views on any of the contentions of the parties – Petition is dismissed.(Paras 8 and 9)
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following reliefs:
".....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.1 herein, the duly constituted Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, to perform his statutory duty viz., to investigate into the complaint made against the Respondent No.2 and take appropriate steps under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the cancellation of the Registration of the said Union, as the certificate of Registration No.A- 4406 dated 27.09.2008, having been obtained by fraud and also that it ceases to have adequate number of members to continue as a Registered Union under the Act and issue such further or other Writ...."
[Reproduced verbatim]
2. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed counters resisting the writ petition.
3. I have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The case of the petitioner company as set out in the writ petition and the submissions made on its behalf, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Ramoji Film City is a township, in which, even according to the 1st respondent/Labour Department, as many as 15 establishments are housed and the said fact is also evident from the report dated 03.02.2009 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the Joint Commissioner of Labour. Even the report with observations submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by his letter dated 27.12.2008 to the Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Minimum Wages Act also evidences the said fact. The petitioner company was having 1716 employees as on 31.01.2009. The increase in the number of employees to 3014 at present had occasioned on account of the merger of nine (9) organisations into the petitioner company. The merged organisations in the petitioner company are as under:
1. Maya
2. Universal Travels
3. Rainbow
4. Symphony
5. Parade
6. Eureka
7. Ushakiron Movies (Location)
8. Ushakiron Movies (Film Division)
9. Harmony
The organisations existing in Ramoji Film City after merger are as under:
1. Ushodaya Enterprises (P) Ltd (TV Division)
2. Newstoday (P) Ltd. (TV Division)
3. Dolphon Hotels Limited
4. R.R.G.E Media
5. Ushakiron Movies Ltd.
6. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd (Art Division)
Thus, Ramoji Film City is the name of a place and it is not an establishment or an Industry covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for brevity). While so, on 29.07.2008, a worker of the petitioner company by name Saidulu had expired. The management had voluntarily made a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as ex-gratia to the members of the family of the said deceased employee. At that time, signatures of the employees of various organisations located in the Ramoji Film City were obtained on blank papers by some persons viz., the so called office bearers of the 2nd respondent Union on the misrepresentation that they will try to get more amount of compensation to the family of the deceased worker. The 2nd respondent Union by a letter dated 30.09.2008 had informed the petitioner company rather the Chairman Ramoji Rao, "Ramoji Film City", as also A. Rammohan Rao, "Managing Director, Ramoji Film City" about the formation of the Union called 'Ramoji Film City (Ushakiron Movies Ltd) Staff & Workers Union, Office: Flat No.9-105/1, Venkateswara Nagar (South), Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500 047' by enclosing a copy of the purported certificate of registration of Trade Union issued by the 1st respondent-Additional Registrar of Trade Union and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the 1st respondent who is also the Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Act, had issued a letter dated
