JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:--- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Union against the order of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, dated 5th January, 1985 in Application (MRTU) No. 20 of 1983. It appears that the following question was referred to the Full Bench of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra for consideration :

"Whether the term 'strike' appearing in section 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Precention of Unfair Labour Prctices Act, 1971, mean a strike only in the very undertaking for wich the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act.

or

Whether it also means a strike in any undertaking other than the undertaking for which the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act."

The Full Bench of the Industrial Court held that the term 'strike' appearing in sections 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Act means a strike only in the very undertaking for which the Applicant-Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act. It is this judgment of the Full Bench which is challenged in the present writ petition.

2. Respondent No. 1-the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, had filed an application under section 11 of the Act for being registered as a recognised Union for the undertaking of Messrs. Raills India Ltd. T.C.F. Division at Andheri. There is another registered Union in the said undertaking by name Teddington Chemical Kamgar Sangh, the petitioner. the petitioner Union had opposed the application made by respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. One of the objections raised was that during the period of six months preceding the date of the application the G.M.K. Union had instigated, aided or assisted commencement or continuation of the strike, which is deemed to be illegal under the Act, in as many as four other undertakings. It was also alleged that the M.G.K. Union similarly instigated illegal strikes in a number of other undertakings, some of which have been declared to be illegal by the Labour Court on 31-10-1983 and proceedings in respect of some other strikes are still pending in the Court of law and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 12(6) of the Act the M.G.K. Union is not entitled for recognition. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to any of the averments made in the application or in reply thereto, since in this case we are purely concerned with a legal proposition.

3. Shri Shrikrishna, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Union, contended before us that prior to the enactment of the Act, a Committee on' Unfair Labour Practice" was appointed, to define the term 'unfair labour practice' and to recommend statutory measures for prevention of unfair labour practices. The Committee came to the conclusion that the issue of unfair labour practice was inextricably mixed up with the issue of certification of a collective bargaining agent. The Committee, therefore, recommended a detailed procedure for selection of a collective bargaining agent and also defined the expression "Unfair labour practice" and recommended suitable machinery for dealing with such unfair labour practices. Thus, the legislative intent behind the Act is two-fold viz. facilitating collective bargaining in certain undertakings and prevention of unfair labour practices. Chapter third of the Act is concerned with the issue of recognition of Unions. Although the recognition of the Unions is unit wise or undertaking wise, some of the conditions, subject to which recognition is to be granted or could be cancelled are to some extent general in nature. The conditions referred to in sections 12(5), 12(6), 13(1)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and 13(2) are not subject to express limitations, but are general in nature. The provisions of sections 12 and 13 will have to be interpreted in the light of the legislative policy and the object so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document