An employer is prohibited from engaging in unfair labour practices, including showing partiality or favouritism to one of several unions attempting to organize its employees, where such a union is not a recognized union.

Headnote:
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES - RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS - PARTIALITY AND FAVOURITISM - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - SCHEDULE II, ITEM 2(B) - SCHEDULE IV, ITEM 5 - BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT - TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - CODE OF DISCIPLINE - SOLE BARGAINING AGENT - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - INDUSTRIAL COURT - JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - NECESSARY PARTIES - UNREGISTERED UNIONS - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS - DOMINATION, INTERFERENCE, OR CONTRIBUTION, SUPPORT - PARTIALITY OR GRANTING FAVOUR - SHOWING FAVOURITISM OR PARTIALITY TO ONE SET OF WORKERS - RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS - PROCEDURE - SCRUTINY OF RELATIVE STRENGTH OF MEMBERS - AGREEMENT - ENFORCEABILITY - SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - CIVIL RIGHTS - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - INTERIM ORDER - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) was engaged in a dispute with two complainant unions, the Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Federation and the Provincial Rashtriya Motor Kamgar Union, over allegations of unfair labour practices. The complainants alleged that the MSRTC had shown partiality and favouritism to two intervening unions, the Maharashtra State Mazdoor Sabha and the Maharashtra S.T. Workers Federation, by granting them exclusive recognition for collective bargaining and denying the complainants equal rights, facilities, and treatment. The complainants also alleged that the MSRTC had violated Item 2(b) of Schedule II and Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:

The Industrial Court found that the MSRTC had engaged in unfair labour practices by showing partiality and favouritism to the intervening unions and directed the MSRTC to cease and desist from such practices. The Industrial Court also directed the MSRTC to extend to the complainants all privileges and facilities that were being extended to the intervening unions. The MSRTC challenged the Industrial Court's decision in the High Court, which upheld the Industrial Court's findings and dismissed the MSRTC's writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints. 2. Whether the complaints were barred by limitation. 3. Whether the intervening unions were necessary parties to the proceedings. 4. Whether the MSRTC had engaged in unfair labour practices by showing partiality and favouritism to the intervening unions. 5. Whether the MSRTC had violated Item 2(b) of Schedule II and Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act. 6. Whether the complainants were entitled to the same rights, facilities, and privileges as the intervening unions. 7. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was competent and maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints because the subject matter of the complaints directly affected the complainants' rights and privileges within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. 2. The complaints were not barred by limitation because the unfair labour practices were of a recurring nature and continued until the time the intervening unions continued to enjoy the disputed facilities. 3. The intervening unions were not necessary parties to the proceedings because they had been allowed to intervene and had effectively participated in the proceedings. 4. The MSRTC had engaged in unfair labour practices by showing partiality and favouritism to the intervening unions by granting them exclusive recognition for collective bargaining and denying the complainants equal rights, facilities, and treatment. This conduct violated Item 2(b) of Schedule II of the Act. 5. Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act was not violated because it applies to favouritism or partiality shown to a particular set of workers, regardless of merits, and not to unions. 6. The complainants were entitled to the same rights, facilities, and privileges as the intervening unions because all unions operating in the MSRTC were brought to an equal position and status after the Act came into force. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal was competent and maintainable because the relief claimed by the MSRTC could only be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, which allows for the issuance of writs of certiorari to quash and set aside orders of inferior courts or tribunals.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the MSRTC's Letters Patent Appeals and upheld the Industrial Court's decision. The High Court also declined to send the case back to the Industrial Court for a final decision on the interim order, as it saw no reason to do so.

JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---The two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 21-2-1984 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1955 of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1978 involving identical issues and hence both the appeals are disposed by this common judgment.

2. The appellant in either of the appeals is Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation), which is constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1960 and is engaged in the business of transporting passengers from one placer to another. Its activities are spread throughout the State of Maharashtra. The first respondent namely, Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Federation in Writ Petition No. 1955 of 1978 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 1984) and the first respondent namely, Provincial Rashtriya Motor Kamgar Union in Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1978 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), claiming to have sizable membership of the employees working in the Corporation, have filed separate individual complaint stating therein that the appellant corporation have indulged in or are engaging in unfair labour practices enumerated in Item 2(b) of Schedule II and item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. According to the two complaints filed before the Industrial Court Nagpur, it was alleged therein that there are various unions operating in the field mainly grouped under (1) Maharashtra State Mazdoor Sabha Bombay, (2) Maharashtra S.T. Workers Federation, Dhulia, and the first respondent complainant unions in either of the appeals. It was further alleged that none of these unions is recognised under the Act. Hence all of them enjoyed equal status and were accordingly entitled to equal rights, facilities, and treatment at least till such time one of them is duly recognised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was further pointed out that one prior agreement between the management and the union was to end on 31-3-1975. The Appellant Corporation commenced negotiations with the representatives of the Maharashtra State Mazdoor Sabha and the Maharashtra S.T. Workers Federation (hereinafter referred to as "the intervening unions"). These intervening unions are parties in Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1978. Either of the first respondent is not invited to participate in the negotiations, although repeated requests were made. No reasons are disclosed by the Corporation for excluding the first respondent in both the appeals. According to the complainant-respondents, non-inclusion of their representatives in the negotiations which were then in progress amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the Corporation. It was also alleged that the management was thus taking a partisan attitude in calling the representatives of the intervening unions for negotiations. According to the complainant respondents, the Corporation was guilty of showing partiality and favouritism to the rival intervening unions attempting to organising their employees, although these unions are not recognised under the Act and are committing unfair labour practice falling within the mischief of Item 2(b) of Schedule II of the Act.

4. In the two complaints filed by the complainant respondents in both the appeals they have also given examples of the attitude of the management in showing special favour and partiality to the two intervening unions. It was pointed out that the other two unions are permitted to affix notices on the notice board of the establishment, whereas the complainant unions in either of the appeal is denied such facility to their great disadvantage. Further the intervening unions are permitted by the management to collect union fund including monthly subscription from their members within the premises of the establishment, but such a facility is not extended to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis