A union cannot represent the workmen of an industry that is not included in the list attached to its Rules and Constitution.

This writ application is directed against the Memorandum of Settlement between M/s. Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. and Their Workmen represented by 1) M/s. Bhartia Employees & Workers Union, 2) M/s. Bhartia Iron and Steel Workers Union and 3) Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Employees Union dated 15.2.1986 with Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, one of its signatories and Settlement dated 15.2.86 of the. Industrial Dispute arrived at in conciliation proceedings with the Labour Commissioner, West Bengal as the Conciliation Officer.

2. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows :-

The Writ petitioner, i. e., South Calcutta Engineering Shramik Panchayet (for short Shramik Panchayet hereafter) is a Union of Workmen working in Engineering Establishments in South Calcutta and is affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Kishan Panchayet, M/s. Bhartia Electric Steel Co, Ltd. Respondent No.2 herein is one of the leading engineering concerns of West Bengal and about 1500 workmen were in its employment in its two units-the one is situated at No.8, Anil Moitra Road, Ballygunge and the other is situated at Baruipur, District 24-Parganas (South). There are four Unions of Workmen serving at present under Respondent No.2 in its Ballygunge Factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road. Of these four Unions-one is led by Congress (1), the second is led by the C. P. I, the third by the C. P. I. (M) and the fourth is said to have led by the Shramik Panchayet. Of the total number of workmen employed in the said factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road, its members from the majority at present. Prior to July, 1985 more or less 120 workmen of the said factory were removed from service by the Management of Respondent No.2 on one plea or another and the Management was taking steps to retrench and/or remove from service a further 400 workmen in their two Units, It is claimed and contended by the Shramik Panchayet that none of three Respondent Trade Unions opposed the removal of the aforesaid 120 workmen. Furthermore, the said three Trade Unions were reported to have had an understanding with the management of Respondent No.2 that they would not oppose the removal of further 400 workmen by the Respondent No.2.

3. The workmen of the Respondent No.2 engaged at the factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road, Calcutta, after coming to know about the understanding of the three Unions, withdrew their support and relinquished the membership from the Respondent Trade Unions and joined Shramik Panchayet as its members and thus, the Shramik Panchayet represented at the material time the majority of workmen of the said factory. It is also the specific case of the Shramik Panchayet that the management of the Respondent No.2 invited the present of the Shramik Panchayet to meet the President of the Shramik Panchayet on 14th August, 1985, 19th August, 1985 and 4th September, 1985 for the discussion on problems of workmen and it was also alleged that the President of the said Shramik Panchayet attended the meeting on each day and the President was bHnded over a list of 400 names proposed to be removed from service under Respondent No.2. The President of Shramik Panchayet expressed his inability to accept such a large scale of retrenchment of workmen. The petitioner asserted the attempts to bring to the notice of the Respondent No.2 that the majority of the workmen of the Respondent No.2 joined the Shramik Panchayet. Sequel to the refusal of the President of the Shramik Panchayet to agree to the proposal of the management of the Respondent No.2 for effecting retrenchment of 400 workmen, a declaration of lock-out of their Ballygunge factory on and from 7th September, 1985 without the payment of monthly wages of the workmen for the month of August, 1985 due and payable by the 10th September, 1985 were issued. The Shramik Panchayet by a letter dated 21st September, 1985 to the Respondent No.2 refused to very many illegalities committed by the management in regard to the workmen and requested the said Respondent No.