Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 1109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Hindustan Unilever Limited and Anr.
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors.
W.P. (C) No. 3058 of 2012
Decided On: 19.09.2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. P.K. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Sarma, Mr. T.K. Bhuyan and Mr. K.R. Baruah, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. S. Sarma, Mr. S. Chakaborty and Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocates
Headnote:
Companies Act, 1956 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Claimed to represent majority - Petitioners seek quashing of Notification issued by second respondent as well as order passed by Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case - Further prayer made is for a direction to State to provide necessary assistance to petitioners in task of membership verification of workers working in their factory at district Assam - Management entered into a settlement on with Hindustan Lever (PPF) Workers Union affiliated to Center of Indian Trade Unions However inspire of such settlement factory faced number of strikes and work stoppages - sHeld, In so far second question in impugned notification as to whether management should treat respondent No. 6 as the majority union, is concerned it does not arise for consideration at all as same was not a subject matter of the conciliation proceeding as would be evident from notice of conciliation where schedule was alleged unilateral action of management to conduct membership verification of unions - In Resettlement Corporation Limited Honble Supreme Court held that if no dispute is raised by employee with management any request send by them to the Government would only be a demand by them and not an industrial dispute between them and their employer - A mere demand to a Government without a dispute being raised by workmen with their employer cannot become an industrial dispute - Petition allowed
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of Notification No. GLR. 274/2006/70 dtd. 02-06-2012 issued by the second respondent as well as order dated 18-06-2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 1/2012. Further prayer made is for a direction to the State to provide necessary assistance to the petitioners in the task of membership verification of the workers working in their factory at Doomdooma, district-Tinsukia, Assam. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having one of its personal product factory at Doomdooma Industrial Estate in the district of Tinsukia, Assam. Petitioner No. 2 is the authorised representative of petitioner No. 1 (petitioners referred to as "management" hereafter).
2. Management entered into a settlement on 23-04-2004 with the Hindustan Lever (PPF) Workers Union (respondent No. 7), affiliated to Center of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). However, inspite of such settlement, the factory faced number of strikes and work stoppages upto July, 2007. The situation reached a flash point in July, 2007, which led to declaration of lock out on 15-07-2007.
3. Following such unpleasant development, a new union called Hindustan Unilever Limited (PPF) Shramik Sangha (respondent No. 6) was formed. Respondent No. 6 is affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC).
4. Following discussion between the management respondent No. 6 and representatives of the Labour Department, Government of Assam, lock out was lifted from 03-09-2007. Settlement was arrived at between the parties and it was found that 629 employees out of 704 were members of respondent No. 6, who requested the management vide letter dated 01-12-2007 to deduct their individual membership subscription of respondent No. 6 from their wages.
5. Subsequently, management and respondent No. 6 signed a Long Term Settlement (LIS) on 12-04-2008 in the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia following constructive negotiations. The LIS was made applicable to the employees in accordance with law, which resulted in restoration of industrial peace.
6. Respondent No. 7 filed W.P. (C) Nos. 5086/2007 and 1069/2008 before this Court challenging the legality of the lock out and seeking direction for ascertainment of majority to facilitate amicable settlement. However, for the reasons given in the judgment dated 11-02-2010, this Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petitions.
7. In the meanwhile, management received number of petitions from the workmen requesting that the membership fee deduction from their wages should be stopped. Accordingly, such deduction was stopped w.e.f. July, 2010. Though respondent No. 6 had filed a civil suit alongwith an injunction petition against the above, the learned Civil Court dismissed the injunction petition. Thereafter, the suit was also dismissed for default.
8. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 6 on the issue relating to stoppage of membership fee deduction from the wages of the workmen. As conciliation failed, the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal following which Reference Case No. 7/2010 was registered, which is now pending.
9. As both respondent Nos. 6 and 7 claimed to represent majority of the workmen, management requested the State to facilitate an election based membership verification process. Thereafter, Labour Commissioner, Assam (Respondent No. 3) directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia to conduct membership verification through secret ballot. However, respondent No. 6 objected to the membership verification process as according to it, the said issue is connected with the subject matter of the pending reference. As such, the verification process could not be completed.
10. In view of such a situation, management decided to conduct verificati
