An unrecognised union cannot file a complaint of unfair labour practices when there is a recognised union already in existence, and frivolous litigation and abuse of process of law cannot be permitted.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner company is aggrieved by an order passed by the Industrial Court on 11th April, 1997 on an application filed by it in the pending complaint ULP No. 584 of 1997 filed by the respondent union under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which was not a recognised Union.

2. It appears that in March 1987, the petitioner company had suspended its manufacturing activities and except 18 workmen all other workmen of the factory had taken voluntary retirement by 1990. On 2nd February 1991, the petitioner company terminated the service of the said 18 workmen and declared total closure of the factory and tendered their legal dues. Except one workman all other workmen collected their dues. On 18th April 1991, after the closure of the said factory at Parel, the first respondent union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice (No. 584 of 1991) under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act alleging that the petitioner company had committed unfair labour practice viz., it had refused to employ the workmen and to pay wages to them from 2nd February, 1991 and that there was violation of Chapter V(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner company contested the said complaint by filing its written statement, inter alia questioning the maintainability of the said complaint on the ground that the complainant union had no locus standi to file the said complaint as it was not a recognised union and that there was already in existence a recognised union under the Act. It was also pointed out by the petitioner company that at an earlier point of time the very same union had filed a complaint ULP No. 538 of 1989 under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and Item 6 of Schedule II of the Act for the very same cause of action. It may be stated that this complaint was filed by the respondent unrecognised union soon after the recognised union had filed a complaint (ULP No. 564 of 1988) which came to be disposed of by a settlement between the parties. The allegations made in the complaint ULP No. 538 of 1989 were the same or identical in the complaint ULP No. 564 of 1988.

3. By an order dated 26th November, 1991 the Complaint No. 538 of 1989 filed by the first respondent unrecognised union was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of locus standi to file the complaint and also on merits. The Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1992 filed against the said order was dismissed by this Court. The net result appears to be that the first complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. unrecognised union for the very same cause of action was dismissed by the Industrial Court and the said order has been finally confirmed by the Division Bench in appeal in this Court. It is the case of the petitioner company that the respondent unrecognised union filed another complaint for the very same cause of action being the complaint ULP No. 584 of 1991 on behalf of one workman who did not accept the terminal benefits which were accepted by the other workmen and the challenge to the action of the petitioner company failed upto the appeal stage in this Court. The petitioner company therefore requested the Industrial Court by its application dated 21-4-1995 to decide the maintainability of the second complaint for the same cause of action filed against it by the said union which is an unrecognised union. The petitioner relied upon the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. others)1, reported in 1995(3) Bom.C.R. 450 wherein it was held that an unrecognised union cannot file a complaint of unfair labour practice when there is a recognised union already in existence. The said application was contested by the respondent unrecognized union. By the order dated 11-4-1997 the Industrial Court dismissed the said application on totally untenable ground. The Industrial Court has totally ignored the fact that the complainant was not a recognised union functioning in the indu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document