An unrecognised union can file a complaint under certain circumstances, especially when there is no recognised or representative union disputing the claim made by the unrecognised union or there is no adversarial approach between the two unions.

JUDGMENT - MHATRE NISHITA (Smt.), J.: - The dispute in this petition pertains to whether an unrecognised union in the Woollen Textile Industry can file a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act claiming wages for workmen who they represent. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.)1, 1995(3) Bom.C.R. 450. The Industrial Court has held that no other union but the representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, 'BIR Act') or a recognised union under the MRTU PULP Act can file a complaint claiming wages on behalf of the workmen employed in the Woollen Industry under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act.

2.It appears that in April 1986, respondent No. 1 i.e., Seth Industries Limited, and respondent No. 2 i.e., Seth Textiles (against whom the writ petition has been dismissed on 12-3-2001 and no steps have been taken to get it resorted) stopped providing work to the employees and did not pay the monthly wages. A complaint was filed in 1986 by the Woollen Mill Kamgar Union, a trade union representing the workmen at that point of time against Seth Textiles regarding non-payment of wages from the month of May 1986 onwards. The complaint was allowed by the Industrial Court, declaring that the company had committed an unfair labour practice. It is not clear from the material before me whether a similar complaint was filed against Seth Industries.

3.In 1987, respondent No. 1 filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It has been declared a sick unit on 6-10-1987. It appears that Canara Bank has filed Suit No. 3635 of 1988 against respondent No. 1. On 25-5-1990, an order was passed by the BIFR for applying to High Court for winding up of the company. The respondent-company approached the AAIFR in appeal. The AAIFR has rejected the appeal and the order of the BIFR has been confirmed from 22-6-1992. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 1 has filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and obtained an ad interim order staying the operation of the order and findings of the BIFR.

4.It appears that in May 1991, a majority of the employees of respondent No. 1 became members of the petitioner-union. The petitioner-union then filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 196 of 1992 under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act for payment of wages for the period from 1986 onwards to the tune of Rs. 126,63,27,759/-. Ad interim orders were passed directing the respondent to pay wages for a certain period. The complaint has been dismissed since the Industrial Court was of the view that the complaint filed by an unrecognised and non-representative union was not maintainable. He has held so in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shramik Utkarsh Sabha (supra). The Industrial Court observed that Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha was the representative Union for the Woollen Industry and, therefore, only that union could represent the workmen in a complaint filed under the MRTU PULP Act.

5.Ms. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners, takes exception to this finding of the Industrial Court and submits that a proper reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shramik Utkarsh Sabha (supra) would indicate that a complaint can be filed by a non-representative and unrecognised union under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act under certain circumstances. She submits this is especially so when there is no recognised or representative union disputing the claim made by the unrecognised union or there is no adversarial approach between the two unions. She submits that in the present case, the representative union has not bothered to take up cudgels for the workman. According to the learned Advocate, the representative union did not have any membership in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document