Back
2009 Supreme(Bom) 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BILAL NAZKI and J. H. BHATIA, JJ.
Force Motors Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Poona Employees Union - Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2006
Decided On : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009.
Mr. K. K. Singhavi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S. K. Talsania, Ms.Pallavi Dhedia i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for Petitioner in WP 2907/06 and for Respondent No.2 in WP 2878/06.
Mr. S. G. Anney, Sr. Counsel with Mr. K. S. Bapat i/by Mr. A. V. Fatangare for the Petitioner in WP 2878/06 and for Respondent No.2 in WP 2907/06.
Ms. Gayatri Singh for Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions.
The Industrial Court's decision must comply with the mandatory provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, and reliance on affidavits for proving membership must adhere to the rules of natural justice.
Headnote:
Union - Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 14
Fact of the Case:
The Company and the Union filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, which cancelled the status of the recognized Union and granted recognition to another Union. The dispute arose from the application made by the Union under Section 14 of the MRTU & PULP Act, claiming a larger membership than the recognized Union.
Finding of the Court:
The Industrial Court's decision was challenged on the grounds that the new Union had no right to represent the automobile union, the Court relied on affidavits instead of the Investigation Officer's report, and Section 19 of the MRTU & PULP Act was not complied with. The Court found that the new Union's constitution did not permit it to enroll employees from the automobile industry, and the affidavits were improperly relied upon. The Court also found that the Industrial Court's decision was defective and violated the law.
Issues: The issues included whether the new Union had the right to represent the majority of the members and whether the Industrial Court's reliance on affidavits was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Industrial Court's approach was defective, and the reliance on affidavits for proving membership was against the rules of natural justice and established law. The Court also found that the Industrial Court's decision was not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the Industrial Court's order was quashed and set aside. The new Union was given the option to make a fresh application in accordance with the law.
Per Bilal Nazki, J. :
These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the same order, therefore they are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. The Writ Petition No. 2907 of 2006 is filed by the Company while Writ Petition No. 2878 of 2006 is filed by the Union. For the purpose of reference to contesting parties, reference is made to the Writ Petition No. 2907 of 2006.
2. The order challenged in both the petitions is dated 22nd March, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune on an application made by respondent No.1 Union under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTU & PULP Act”). By the impugned order, the Industrial Court cancelled the status of recognised Union of respondent No.2 and granted recognition to respondent No.1 Union in respect of the Company – Bajaj Tempo Limited, Akurdi, Pune. So the union which was earlier recognised has filed one petition and the Company has filed another petition.
3. The Company's case is that it is incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of commercial vehicles. One of the factories of the Company is located at Akurdi, Pune in which 2100 employees are employed. Respondent No.1, who claimed to be registered trade union filed application under Section 14 of the MRTU & PULP Act for cancellation of the recognition of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 made an application under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act claiming that for the period preceding six months of the application it had membership of 1973 employees out of total number of 2100 employees employed under the petitioner undertaking. Respondent No.1 Union, therefore, prayed that the recognition of Bharatiya Kamgar Sena should be cancelled and in its place respondent No.1 should be granted recognition. The Company as well as respondent No.2 Union filed written statement denying respondent No.1 Union's membership as claimed. They also denied that respondent No.1 union was eligible to the grant of recognition in respect of the undertaking. Respondent No.2 – Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (hereinafter referred as “BKS”) claimed that it was recognized union since 1998 and it continued to enjoy membership of the employees of the Company. Even basic registration of respondent No.1 Union was challenged by the BKS and the Company. The Industrial Court decided this issue as preliminary issue by an order holding that respondent No.1 was a registered trade union. Certain other facts have been also mentioned in the writ petitions which are not necessary for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. But a development which took place during the course of hearing before the Industrial Court needs to be mentioned as a ground related to it had been agitated by the petitioner to challenge the order of the Tribunal. On 16th September, 2004 the BKS filed an application alleging that respondent No.1 union had directed the employees to attend the office of the Industrial Court and sign affidavits to the effect that they were members of respondent No.1 union. The BKS prayed that the Registry should be asked not to entertain the affidavits as it was a settled position in law that verification of membership can not be done on the basis of such affidavits. The respondent No.1 union filed reply submitting that the affidavits were being filed for some different purpose and the same shall not be relied upon for the purpose of verification of membership. The Industrial Court on 29th September, 2004 rejected the application of BKS making it clear that the affidavits would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of verification of membership. The Industrial Court appointed an Investigation Officer and directed him to verify membership of respondent No.1 union as well as of BKS for the period of six calendar months, immediately preceding the month of September, 2003. The Investigation O
