Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mahindra and Mahindra Workers Union
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided on 28/3/2005
Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Dispute Reference - Deputy Registrar's Order
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 3 raised a grievance regarding the functioning of the petitioner-Union and claimed to be a member of the Union. A dispute was pending before the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Deputy Registrar issued a certificate under Section 28(1)(A) of the Act, referring the dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Registrar's issuance of the consent certificate for reference to the Industrial Court was justified, as the petitioner-Union had not filed any reply to the complaint, and there was an order from a learned single Judge directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the proceeding within 15 days.
Issues: The issue was whether the Deputy Registrar's order referring the dispute to the Industrial court was valid, considering the petitioner-Union's failure to respond to the complaint and the direction from the learned single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Registrar's issuance of the consent certificate for reference to the Industrial Court was justified, as there was no response from the petitioner-Union and a directive from a learned single Judge to expedite the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, affirming the validity of the Deputy Registrar's order referring the dispute to the Industrial court.
( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Vaidya in support of this petition. Ms. Gayatri Singh appears for respondent No. 3.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has raised a grievance with respect to the functioning of the petitioner-Union. He claims to be a member of the Union. A dispute arising out of his complaint was pending before the Deputy registrar of the Trade Union under the Trade unions Act, 1926. The officer gave an opportunity to the Petitioner-Union and as per the noting of November 29, 2004, the Union did not file any reply either in writing or orally. Ultimately, therefore, on December 3, 2004, he has issued a certificate under Section 28 (1) (A) of the Trade Unions Act referring the dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial court.
( 3 ) IT is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. Vaidya appearing for the Petitioner states that on an earlier date the Petitioner-Union had sought time to give further particulars. It was further submitted that the necessary papers and instructions should be sent to the Union at a particular address. All these requests were not being looked into and, therefore, this order of (sic) reference is bad.
( 4 ) MS. Singh has filed an affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 3. It is accepted and rightly so in Para 4 that the consent certificate means nothing more than a reference and the dispute is finally to be decided by the Industrial Court. Ms. Singh points out that there has been an order of the learned single Judge of this Court directing the Deputy registrar to decide the proceeding before him within 15 days, which is stated in Para 4 of the reply.
( 5 ) IN view of what is stated above, we do not find anything wrong on the part of the deputy Registrar in issuing the consent certificate. Petition is rejected.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
