The court upheld the principle of collective bargaining, ruling that workmen represented by a union cannot independently file claims against their union, ensuring industrial peace and effective representation.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Petitioners herein are the workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 company and being aggrieved by rejection of statement of claim filed by them in Reference (IT) No. 06/2021 by order dated 04.01.2022 present petition is filed.

3. The facts which led to the filing of the petition can be narrated in brief as under :-

Petitioners are workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Those respondents are private limited companies engaged in manufacturing of automobile parts and having manufacturing units at the addresses mentioned in title clause. Respondent No. 3 is Trade Union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and claims to have been representing of workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 company.

4. The case of the petitioners is that there are in all 56 workmen employed with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There is allegation that though these two companies are shown as separate entities and have different registration under the Companies Act, but they are closely supervised, managed and controlled by same person and, therefore, a single unit. It is further claimed that the production unit of both companies is one and the same. There is further allegation of the present petitioners that though 56 workmen are shown as permanent workmen and there are other contractual workmen engaged by these companies. It is alleged that notice of closure was issued by respondent No. 1 company. Respondent No.3-Union issued demand notice to respondent No. 1 company for withdrawal of closure notice and providing work to all 56 permanent workmen in another unit i.e., respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the said demand notice, conciliation process was initiated however it culminated into failure. Thus, failure report came to be submitted on 24.06.2021 and taking cognizance of the same, State Government has referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad Reference (IT) No.06/2021. It is alleged by petitioners that the respondent No. 3-Union is in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and is acting against interest of employees. It is also claimed that the Union has failed to point out correct factual position before the Conciliation Officer that there are 5 sister companies of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 engaging more than 700 temporary workmen and, therefore, conciliation proceeding failed. In these circumstances, since the petitioners did not want to be represented by respondent No. 3-Union, they filed independent statement of claim before the Industrial Court. Industrial Court passed suo moto order vide Exhibit 1 and rejected the statement of claim filed by petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act more particularly Industrial Dispute Maharashtra Rules 16 and 22(2) which according to him provide for service of notice to the Union as well as to the workmen calling upon them to file statement of claim. He drew attention of the Court to Form V and VIII which according to him sufficiently demonstrates that the workmen are within their right to file statement of claim if they choose not to be represented by the Union. It is his submission that the Industrial Court has committed serious error by placing reliance on Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act in order to reject the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workmen. He also made reference to Section 36 of the Act which deals with the representation of the parties and according to him since respondent No. 3 Union is not a recognized union under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short “MRTU & PULP Act”) it cannot claim exclusive right to represent of all the workmen.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Union contended that the petitioners as well as all other workmen o