Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2752
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Coimbatore Periyar Districts Dravida Panjalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, rep. by its General Secretary S. Doraisamy & Others
Versus
National Textile Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager (Human Resources) & Others
W.P.No.6334 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 14-06-2011
For the Petitioners:K. Srinivasamurthy, M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:C.V. Vijayakumar, T.R. Rajaraman, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty of employers to deduct and remit union subscriptions, emphasizing the right to form and continue as a member of a trade union and the compulsory payment of subscriptions.
Headnote:
Trade Unions - Deduction of Subscription - Trade Unions Act, 1926, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - The court discussed the rights of trade unions and their members, the statutory duty of employers to deduct and remit union subscriptions, and the implications of recognition of trade unions for negotiation purposes. The court emphasized the right to form and continue as a member of a trade union, the compulsory payment of subscriptions, and the employer's obligation to deduct and remit the same. The court also highlighted the historical practice of deductions and the distinction between recognition for negotiation and deduction of subscriptions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, registered trade unions, sought to quash an order refusing to deduct and remit union subscriptions from their members' salaries based on recognition status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to deduct and remit union subscriptions was unjustified, emphasizing the statutory duty of employers and the historical practice of deductions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were justified in refusing to deduct and remit union subscriptions from the members of the petitioners' unions based on recognition status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to form and continue as a member of a trade union, the compulsory payment of subscriptions, and the employer's obligation to deduct and remit the same were key legal principles influencing the decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to deduct and remit membership contributions from the salary of willing members based on their written authorization.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 29.1.2011 and direct the respondents 1 to 5 to continue to deduct subscription from its employees including the petitioners 3 to 6 who are members of the 1st and 2nd petitioners and remit the same to the 1st and 2nd petitioners irrespective of whether they have been recognised or not.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) The petitioners 1 and 2 are registered Trade Unions and petitioners 3 to 6 are members of one of the Union. The first respondent is a Government of India Undertaking. The National Textile Corporation owned seven national Textile Mills in Tamil Nadu, i.e, five in Coimbatore District and one each in Sivagangai and Ramnad Districts. The said Mills were taken over by the Central Government.
(b) According to the petitioners, several workers working in respondents 2 to 5 NTC Unions in Tamil Nadu are members of the first and second petitioner Trade Unions. Till the year 2010, respondents management were deducting subscriptions from the members of the Petitioners 1 and 2 Unions based on the list submitted by the petitioners 1 and 2 Unions and remitted the same into the account of petitioners 1 and 2 every month. It is stated that the said practice was in vogue for more than 25 years.
(c) On 19.12.2010 election for recognition of the Trade Unions was conducted and four Trade Unions viz., INTUC, CITU, LPF and Coimbatore Regional Mill Labour Union were declared as recognised Trade Unions as they got more than 10% of the votes polled in all the NTC Mills in Tamil Nadu. The said recognition was granted for negotiation purpose on behalf of the employees.
(d) On 27.12.2010 the Management of NTC Units addressed letters to the aforesaid four Unions recognised by the management to furnish the list of their members to enable the management to deduct subscription from their wages and remit to the
Unions. The petitioners 1 and 2 were not issued with any such communication as they failed to get recognition.
(e) According to the petitioner Mills, merely on the ground that the petitioners 1 and 2 Unions have not secured 10% of the total votes polled in the election, the respondents 2 to 5 are not justified in refusing to deduct subscription from the members of the petitioners 1 and 2 Unions and remit the same to the Unions. The said action is not only in violation of the practice followed hitherto, but also in contravention of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1989 (1) LLJ 554 (State Bank Staff Union v. State Bank of India).
(f) It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioners sent a representation on 8.1.2011 and pointed out the above referred judgment and demanded the respondents Management to deduct Union subscription from the members of the petitioners 1 and 2 Unions as per their willingness expressed by its members. On 10.1.2011 the petitioners 1 and 2 submitted the list of members together with authorisation letters signed by the individual workers to the respondents 2 to 5 and requested them to deduct Union Subscription.
(g) However, the management did not deduct any such subscription and consequently on 28.1.2011 petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent for which the first respondent replied on 27.1.2011 stating that the respondents will deduct subscription only for the Trade Unions which had secured 10% of the total votes polled, which are granted recognition. According to the petitioners, recognition of Trade Unions has no bearing on the deduction of subscription on behalf of the petitioners 1 and 2 Unions from its members based on their authorisation. It is also contended in the affidavit that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 contemplates deduction of contribution for Unions from the members of the Unions based on the authorisation given by the individual workers. Raising the said grounds the writ petition is filed with the above
