Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975, is directory and not mandatory, and the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain objections after the expiry of the prescribed period, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:
RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS - RULE 6 OF THE MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES RULES, 1975 - INTERPRETATION - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - INDUSTRIAL COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN OBJECTIONS AFTER EXPIRY OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the Industrial Court's refusal to entertain its objections to an application for recognition of a trade union, arguing that Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975, which prescribed an eight-day period for filing objections, was directory and not mandatory.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 6 was directory and not mandatory, and that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain objections after the expiry of the prescribed period, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975, is mandatory or directory. 2. Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain objections after the expiry of the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Babu Ram to determine whether Rule 6 was mandatory or directory. The court considered the nature and design of the statute, the consequences of construing it one way or the other, the impact of other provisions, the absence of a contingency for non-compliance, and the serious or trivial consequences that flowed therefrom. 2. The court found that Rule 6 was enacted as an aid to achieve the goal of early disposal of applications for recognition of trade unions, and that it was merely directory. The court also noted that section 11(2) of the Act provided for a period of three months for disposal of applications, but with the qualifier "as far as possible," indicating that the Legislature did not intend to lay down a rigid rule.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Industrial Court's order refusing to entertain the petitioner's objections and directed the Industrial Court to consider the objections on merits.

JUDGMENT

PENDSE J.- The question that falls for determination in these four petitions is the correct and true interpretation of rule 6 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

2. The facts of these petitions are somewhat similar and for the purposes of this judgment we will refer to the facts in Special Civil Application No. 2298 of 1977. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are registered Trade Unions. After the enactment of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on February J, 1972, respondent No.2 has filed an application under section 11 of the Act for being registered as a recognized Trade Union for the undertaking. As required by the provisions of section 12 (1) of the Act, the Industrial Court having found that the application was in order directed that a notice be displayed on the notice board of the petitioner undertaking declaring the intention to consider the application of respondent No.2 and calling upon the Union and the employer to show cause within the prescribed time as to why the recognition should not be granted. There is no dispute between the parties that the said notice was duly published on the notice board of the petitioner company on February 16, 1977. Rule 6 provides that the period to show cause under sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be eight days from the date of the notice displayed on the notice board. The notice stated that the Industrial Court will hear the application on March 1, 1977. On the date of hearing, the petitioner made an application seeking time to file written statement on the ground that advocate of the petitioner had suffered a fracture of the leg and consequently unable to prepare and file the written statement in time. The proceedings thereupon were adjourned to March 28, 1977. On the adjourned date the petitioner filed the written statement, but the Industrial Court refused to entertain it on the ground that it was not filed within period prescribed by Rule 6. The application for condonation of delay was turned down, on the finding that provision of Rule 6 is mandatory. The order passed on June 29, 1977 is under challenge in Petition No. 2298 of 1977 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After refusing to take the written objections of the petitioner on record, the Industrial Court· proceeded with the inquiry of the application filed by respondent No.2 and by an order dated September 13, 1977 granted the application directing that respondent No.2 be registered as a recognized Union. The petitioner has challenged this order too by carrying out an amendment to petition No. 2298 of 1977.

3. Mr. Kapadia, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Industrial Court was in error in refusing to entertain the objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that the objections were filed beyond the period of eight days. It was urged by the learned Counsel that it was an error to treat rule 6 as mandatory and refuse to entertain objections filed beyond that period. The learned Counsel argued that rule 6 should be treated as merely directory and failure to strictly comply with rule 6 should not be so fatal as to prevent the employer from participating in proceedings. The crucial question which requires determination is whether the provisions of rule 6 are mandatory or directory. Before we answer the question, it is necessary to find out the provisions of the Act, which provide for filing the application for recognition of the Union and for filing objections to such application.

4. Chapter III of the Act provides for recognition of Unions. Section 11 (1) lays down that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document