IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. M. JOSHI, J.
New Panther Kamgar Sena Forbe Housing Society Through Its President - Appellant
Versus
NRB Bearing Pvt Ltd Through Its Managing Director And Others - Respondent
WP/9808 of 2021
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Laws Act, 1971 - Sections 11, 12, and 19 - Trade Union recognition - Petitioner's application to join proceedings rejected as it was not in existence at the time of application - The court emphasized that a union must prove 30% membership for the six months preceding the application for recognition. (Paras 4, 6, 17)
(B) Trade Union Rights - The court ruled that a union not existing at the time of application cannot raise objections to recognition, reinforcing the statutory requirement for timely objections and membership verification. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a trade union formed in 2018, sought to join proceedings for recognition of another union, claiming the latter was defunct. The application was rejected as the petitioner was not in existence during the relevant period.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the rejection of the petitioner's application, stating it lacked standing as it did not exist at the time of the original application for recognition.
Issues: The main issues included whether a non-existent union could join recognition proceedings and the interpretation of membership requirements under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only unions existing at the time of application can participate in recognition proceedings, as per the statutory framework.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. This petition takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit C-42 whereby application filed by the petitioner - Trade Union to add itself as a party to the proceeding bearing application MRTU No. 1/2015 for seeking recognition filed by Respondent No. 2, came to be rejected by the Industrial Court, Jalna.
3. The petitioner claims to be a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It also claims to be representing the employees of respondent No. 1 Company. Such claim of membership of these employees is from year 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 (Panther Power Kamgar Sanghatana) was existing in the Company at the relevant time and was representing the workmen of the company. It however became defunct and hence the petitioner is entitled to be joined itself as a party to the proceedings filed for recognition filed by the respondent No.2 (All Marathwada Kamgar Union). Therefore, an application was filed vide Exhibit C-42 to make petitioner party to the said proceedings. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner Union was not in existence at the time of the filing of the application which is concerned with the membership of the employees for the period of six months prior to filing of the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Union submits that in view of the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 19 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Laws Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), it is not only for the Trade Union but also even to the employees of the undertaking to raise objection to the grant of recognition to the union. It is his submission that it is not necessary that the Trade Union must exist at the time of filing of the application and any union which gains membership of the employees even at a later point of time will have to be permitted to raise objection to the grant of recognition. It is his submission that for the purpose of recognition, the membership of the applicant Union only is not relevant but also compliance of Section 19 of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof could be established by Petitioner. It is his further submission that in any case, respondent No.3 was a party to the said application and as such, there is no justification for denying the present petitioner/Union to be join as a party to the said proceeding being successor thereof. He further argued that the Respondent No. 2/Union is a union sponsored by the employer and it is not in the interest of the employees. He also submitted that if recognition is granted to Respondent No. 2, Petitioner would not be able to seek de-recognition for a period of at least one year. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, 2006(9)CPSC781, to seeks directions similar to the one issued therein.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Union supported the impugned order on the ground that unless, the union was in existence at the time of filing of the application, it is not open for such Union to raise objection to the grant of recognition. He also argued that the objections which were not taken pursuant to notice issued by Industrial Court under Section 12, cannot be allowed to be raised now.
6. Before considering the factual matrix, it would be necessary to appreciate scheme of recognition of a trade union under the provisions of Act of 1971. Chapter III of the Act deals with the recognition of unions. Section 10 makes it clear that the said chapter applies to every undertaking where 50 or more employees are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months. Thus, if the number of employees employed in an undertaking at any time, falls below 50 continuously in a period of an year, the provisions of this chapter ceases to apply to such undertaki
A trade union must exist at the time of application for recognition to raise objections; membership must be proven for the preceding six months.
The court upheld the inclusion of seasonal employees for union membership verification effective for trade union recognition under the Industrial Relations Act, affirming judicial review principles a....
Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.
Judicial review does not substitute the decision of inferior authorities unless proven to be illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper.
Point of law: If the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate is obtained by fraud or mistake or the Union has ceased to exist, is not the circumstance here and further has willfully and after not....
Trade Unions must reflect majority strength for negotiations; prior recognition does not grant exclusivity, emphasizing collective bargaining principles.
Only registered trade unions have the authority to designate workmen as 'protected workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and individual workmen cannot independently seek this status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.