SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Kar) 161

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Rama Jois
H.M.T.KARMIKA SANGHA - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR - Respondent
W. P. 11276 Of 1984
Decided On : 08/01/1984
Advocates Appeared :
D.LEELA KRISHNA, N.DEVA DAS

Internal rules of a Trade Union, equivalent to bye-laws, cannot create a statutory duty for the Commissioner of Labour. The Commissioner has the discretion to nominate a Returning Officer if deemed expedient.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Trade Union Election - Karnataka Trade Union Regulations 1958, Section 29 - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Trade Union Regulations 1958 and the Model Election Rules, and their applicability to the case. The court found that the petitioner's request for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Labour Commissioner to nominate a Returning Officer was not permissible as the Trade Union's internal rules could not create a statutory duty for the Commissioner. The court, however, observed that the Commissioner had the discretion to nominate a Returning Officer if deemed expedient.

Fact of the Case:

The Hindustan Machine Tools Karmika Sangha, a registered Union, sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Labour to conduct an election for the Management of Labour Union or to nominate another officer. The Union's request was based on the provisions of the Karnataka Trade Union Regulations 1958 and its own Election Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Trade Union's internal rules could not create a statutory duty for the Commissioner of Labour. It dismissed the Writ Petition but left the option for the Commissioner to reconsider the request to nominate a Returning Officer.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Karnataka Trade Union Regulations 1958 and the Model Election Rules, and whether the Trade Union's request for a Writ of Mandamus was permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Trade Union's internal rules, equivalent to bye-laws, could not create a statutory obligation for the Commissioner. It also observed that the Commissioner had the discretion to nominate a Returning Officer if deemed expedient.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, but the Commissioner of Labour was given the liberty to reconsider the request to nominate a Returning Officer.

RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner-The Hindustan Machine Tools Karmika Sangha, a registered Union has presented this Petition pray-ing for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Labour either to conduct an election for the Management of Labour Union by himself or to nominate any other officer.

( 2 ) THE Petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. By consent of both the Counsel it is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case to the extent necessary for disposal of this Petition are as follows : the Petitioner is a Trade Union consisting of workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools Iandii factories, Bangalore, It is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. At the time of registration, as required under Section 6 of the Act, the Petitioner-Union had framed and submitted Election Rules (for short 'the Rules') to the registering authorities. According to the said Rules, the Managing Committee is required to be elected by the General Body and its term is two years. The existing Managing Committee was elected on 5-5-1982. Therefore, its term expired on 5-5-84, It is however continuing in office by virtue of Rule 9-D of the Rules. By a letter dated 12-12-1983 (Annexure-D) the Petitioner-Union requested the Commissioner of labour to appoint an Officer to function as Returning Officer for conducting the election of the office bearers of the Labour Union, The resolution passed by the Executive Committee was also enclosed to the said letter, For the said letter a reply (Annexure-B) was sent by the commissioner of Labour, the relevant portion of it reads as follows :

"with reference to your letter, dated 12-12-83, requesting for appointment of Returning Officer to conduct the election to H. M. T. Karmika Sangha, Bangalore, you are requested to make your own arrangements for appointment of Returning Officer as there is a dearth of staff in this department. "

The reason given was there was paucity of the officers for holding the election. Once again, another letter was sent on 6th April, 1984 (Annexure-F) requesting the Commissioner to hold the election. By a letter dated 18-4-1984 (Annexure-G) the Commissioner requested the Petitioner to furnish a copy of the Election Rules of the Union. Accordingly it was furnished. Again on 23-4-1984, the Petitioner addressed a letter (Annexure-H) to the Commissioner.

( 4 ) IN that letter while the Petitioner admitted that its election rules bad not been amended requiring an officer of the Labour Department to function as Returning Officer, the Petitioner pointed out that as such a statutory provision was made by one amendment to the Karnataka trade Union Regulation, there was an obligation on the part of the Labour Commissioner to nominate a Returning Officer It was further pointed out that in accordance with the amended regulations, the request for nominating a Returning Officer by the Commissioner of Labour was backed not only by the Resolution of the Executive Committee but also a Resolution of the general Body.

( 5 ) THE Commissioner however, gave his reply dated 8-54984 (Annexure-J) to the Petitioner. The relevant portion of it reads

"as accepted by you, the election rules framed by your Association as per your Bye-laws, do not contain similar provision to Rule 4 (2) (a) and (h) of the Model Election Rules. The amendment made by notification No. LMA 20 LWA 67 dated 11th March 1968 issued by the state Government, is therefore, not adopted by you. In this connection, your reference to karnataka Trade Union Regulations do not have such provisions and Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) found in page 159 of Labour Manual I (II Edition), is only a printing mistake. By reading of Regulation 4, which deals with registration of Trade Unions, it will be very clear that Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) are irrelevant in that place as they do not deal with any maintenance of registers of Trade Unions referred to in Section 8. The amendment was only to























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top