Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 961
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, P. Balakrishnan & Another
Versus
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others
W.P. Nos. 28891 of 2012, 2830 & 3104 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 in W.P. No. 28891 of 2012
Decided on : 15-02-2013
For the Petitioners:V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for R. Sudalaikannu, K. Marimuthu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:E.M.S. Natarajan, G.A. (Coop.), R. Yashod Varadan, Senior counsel for K. Marimuthu, M. Christopher, Advocates.
The absence of any statutory obligation for recognizing any union in the State of Tamil Nadu and the non-justiciability of the issue of union recognition in the absence of any law relating to the same.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Recognition Dispute - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, Code of Discipline - The court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the Circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, allowing multiple trade unions to participate in wage negotiations, holding that there is no statutory obligation for recognizing any union in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court emphasized that the issue of union recognition is non-statutory and covered by guidelines under the Code of Discipline, and that the Writ Petition seeking recognition is not maintainable in the absence of any law relating to the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trade union, challenged a Circular allowing multiple trade unions to participate in wage negotiations, claiming to be the sole bargaining agent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is no statutory obligation for recognizing any union in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Writ Petition seeking recognition is not maintainable in the absence of any law relating to the same.
Issues: The legality of the Circular allowing multiple trade unions to participate in wage negotiations and the maintainability of the Writ Petition seeking recognition as the sole bargaining agent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the issue of union recognition is non-statutory and covered by guidelines under the Code of Discipline, and that the Writ Petition seeking recognition is not maintainable in the absence of any law relating to the same.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions challenging the Circular were dismissed, and the court held that the issue of union recognition is non-statutory and not justiciable in the absence of any law relating to the same.
1. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. K. Sudalaikannu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28891 of 2012, Mr. R. Yashod Varadan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading party, namely Tamil Nadu Bank Employees Federation of India/the petitioner in the other two Writ Petitions, seeking to implead them as a party to the Writ Petition in W.P.No.28891 of 2012, Mr. K. Marimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner forum in W.P.NOS.2830 and 3104 of 2013, Mr. M. Christopher, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank and Mr. E.M.S. Natarajan, learned Government Advocate (Cooperatives), on taking notice for the official respondents in all these Writ Petitions.
2. In W.P.No.28891 of 2012, the petitioner is Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Association affiliated to AIBEA AND AICBEF, represented by its General Secretary. In that Writ Petition, the petitioner trade union challenges the Circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai dated 27.9.2012. By the impugned circular, the Registrar of the Society informed the Special Officer of the Special Officer of the Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank and other trade unions working in the said establishment that a Committee has been constituted to examine the Charter of demands submitted by various service Associations. The Committee was to be headed under the Chairman of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Committee will hold discussions with four Service Associations for finalizing the revised pay scales of the employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank and other service benefits.
3. But, however, another trade union by name Tamil Nadu Cooperative Bank Employees Forum has sent a letter on 16.9.2012 stating that their representatives should be invited to participate in the discussions held for the wage revision for the employees of District Central Cooperative Bank. It was felt by the Registrar that inclusion of one more Association will improve the industrial relations and also strengthen the morale of the employees. It was decided to include the said Association also to participate in the discussions for wage revision of the employees. Therefore, he directed that the two representatives of the Forum shall be permitted to represent their association during the discussions.
4. For the sake of convenience, the first association is known as "Employees Association" and the rival association, namely the petitioner in W.P.NOs.2830 and 3104 of 2013, is mentioned as "Employees Forum".
5. As soon as the receipt of the said Circular, the Employees association sent a representation on 12.10.2012 to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies as well as to the Commissioner of Labour in his capacity as Chairman of the Evaluation and Implementation Committee, demanding that they should be recognised as the sole bargaining agent in view of the fact that they have majority of the employees, namely, 70% and they further requested not to allow other trade union or Federation for negotiation and that the employees forum is not even a registered body.
6. Immediately after sending such representation, the Writ Petition came to be filed within four days on 16.10.2012 stating that the Circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 27.9.2012 (sent on 3.10.2012) was illegal and it should be set aside and for a direction to the official respondents, namely respondents 1 to 4 to ascertain the majority status of the union representing the work force covered by the wage negotiations and that the wage negotiations should take place only with the association with enjoys majority of the membership of the said workers and no other union.
7. When that Writ Petition came up on 25.10.2012, Notice of Motion was ordered returnable by 8.11.2012 and interim stay was granted only till that date. But, however, no further extension of interim order was granted by this Court.
