Only registered trade unions are authorized to represent their members according to Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, invalidating any representations made by unregistered unions.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. It is also seen that newspaper publication had been made in respect of respondent No. 5. Further the Lawazima Court order dated 21.08.2024 states that service in respect of respondent No. 5 has been completed.

3. The matter relates to an order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 2/2011, by which it has been held that an unregistered trade union can represent its members, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731(2). The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 thus held that the Reference Case No. 2/2011 was maintainable.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that a perusal of Section 2 (qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), clearly shows that the learned Tribunal has completely misread the provisions of Section 2 (qq) of the Act, inasmuch as, an unregistered Trade Union cannot represent it’s members.

5. Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also submits that the learned Tribunal has made a mistake in coming to a finding that an unregistered trade union can espouse the cause of a employee of the trade union, in view of Section 2 (qq) of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above.

6. Section 2 (qq) of the Act states as follows:-

“Trade union” means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926”

7. Further para 37 of the judgment in B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra) states as follows:-

“37. We shall now advert to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act with reference to the registration of Trade Unions. Section 2 (q)(q) defines trade union which means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926). Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 says that the workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Act by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member or by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade unions referred to in clause A is affiliated. The writ petitioner union made a false averment that it is a registered trade union that itself, in our opinion, is a ground to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petitioner has made an averment to the following effect in its writ petition which is also reflected in the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition which runs thus:

"The petitioner is a registered Trade Union of employees of 2nd respondent Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') constituted under the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')."

8. A perusal of Section 2 (qq) of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly goes to show that it is only a registered trade union, who can espouse the cause of a member of the trade union and as the Down Town Hospital Limited Employees Union is not a registered trade union, it cannot espouse the cause of the respondent No. 4. As such, the finding of the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 is not sustainable. The order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the lear