1985 Supreme(Raj) 316
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dwarka Prasad, S.K.Lodha, JJ.
Union Of India (Uoi) - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Anushakati Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh and Another - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 and 86 of 1976.
Decided On : 10-01-1985
The provisions of Rule 61(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which require the unions to communicate the names of the workmen for recognition as "protected workmen" before April 30th of each year, are directory and not mandatory.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - PROTECTED WORKMEN - RECOGNITION - TIME LIMIT FOR COMMUNICATION OF NAMES - DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY - RULE 61(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (CENTRAL) RULES, 1957.
Fact of the Case:
The Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Sangh and the Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Karamchari Sangh, both registered and recognised trade unions, applied for recognition of some of their office bearers as "protected workmen" under Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (the Rules). The applications were filed after the time limit prescribed in Rule 61(1), which requires the unions to communicate the names of the workmen for recognition before April 30th of each year. The Chief Project Officer rejected the applications, and the unions raised disputes under Rule 61(4) of the Rules. The Assistant Labour Commissioner accepted the unions' representations and directed the Chief Project Officer to recognise the workmen as "protected workmen". The petitioner-appellant, the employer, challenged the Assistant Labour Commissioner's orders by filing writ petitions, contending that Rule 61(1) is mandatory and that the applications were filed after the expiry of the time limit.
Finding of the Court:
The Rajasthan High Court held that the provisions of Rule 61(1) of the Rules, which require the unions to communicate the names of the workmen for recognition as "protected workmen" before April 30th of each year, are directory and not mandatory. The court found that Rule 61(1) does not prescribe a period of limitation, but rather a time limit for the convenience of the registered trade unions. The court also found that no consequences or penalties are provided for failure to comply with the time limit. Therefore, the court concluded that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was correct in entertaining the unions' applications after April 30th.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Rule 61(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which require the unions to communicate the names of the workmen for recognition as "protected workmen" before April 30th of each year, are mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Rule 61(1) of the Rules are directory and not mandatory, based on the following reasoning: * Rule 61(1) does not prescribe a period of limitation, but rather a time limit for the convenience of the registered trade unions. * No consequences or penalties are provided for failure to comply with the time limit. * The purpose of Section 33(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Rule 61(1) of the Rules is to protect workmen from unwarranted victimisation and to give them a collective bargaining strength. A mandatory interpretation of Rule 61(1) would defeat this purpose by denying recognition to workmen whose applications are filed after the time limit, even if the delay is not substantial or prejudicial to the employer. * The court also considered the fact that the unions in the present case had filed their applications shortly after the expiry of the time limit, and that the employer had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the employer, upholding the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner recognising the workmen as "protected workmen".
JUDGMENT
1. - Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated September 24, 1976 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 of 1976 arises out of a writ petition No. 61 of 1975 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975.
2. The facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975 out of which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 has arises are these.
3. The Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Sangh, Rawat Bhata (respondent-non-petitioner No. 1) and the (Union here in) is a registered and recognised Union functioning in the Rajasthan Atomic Power, Rawat Bhata. It is affiliated to C.I.T.U. It was formed for the first time in September 1974. It moved an application to the Chief Project Officer on September 30, 1974 for declaring some of its office bearers as "protected workmen". This application was filed after the time which is prescribed in Rule 61 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules" here in). The Chief Protected Officer ("the Officer) rejected its application by his letter Anx. 1 dated October 11, 1974. Thereupon, the Union raised a dispute Under Rule 61(4) of the Rules by a written representation praying therein to declare some of its workers as "protected workmen" as per the list furnished by the Union to the Officer. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (non-petitioner-respondent No. 2) accepted the representation of the Union and directed the officer to give recognition as "protected workmen" at least to its six workers, Office bearers. The petitioner-appellant challenged this order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner by the written petition on the ground that Rule 61(1) is mandatory and as the application was filed after the expiry of the time limit provided in Rule 61 of the Rules and so the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Union filed the counter and raised various pleas. It was, inter alia, contended that Rule 61(1) of the Rules so far as it relates to the communication of the names before the 30th April every year is directory and not mandatory.
4. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 of 1976 arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1975. The Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Karamchari Sangh is a recognised registered trade union functioning at Rajasthan Atomic Power Project' Rawat Bhata. It will here in after be referred to as "the Sangh". It submitted an application on June 26, 1974 for declaring some of its workmen whose names are mentioned in the application as "protected men" in terms of Rule 61 of the Rules read with Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV) of 1947, which will for the sake of brevity here in after be referred to as "the Act". This application was rejected by the Chief Project Officer ("the Officer") by his letter Anx. 2 dated July 11, 1974. The ground for rejection was that the Sangh failed to submit the list of the workmen before April 30, 1974 for being declared as "protected workmen". The Sangh raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kota (non-petitioner-respondent No. 2). 'The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kota (non-petitioner-respondent No. 2) issued a direction to the petitioner-appellant to give recognition to 12 to 13 members of the Sangh as "protected workmen". Against that the writ petition was filed on the ground that Rule 61(1) of the Rules is mandatory. No return was filed to the writ petition by the Sangh. However, in reply to the stay application it was contended that the provisions of Rule 61 in so far as it provided that before 30th April every year the names should be communicated is directory only, and that the petitioner-appellant itself has been recognising the workmen of the Sangh as "protected workmen" on the application, although they were filed after 30th April in, the past i.e. in
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
