Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
Coimbatore Periyar Districts Dravida Panjalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, rep. by its General Secretary S. Doraisamy - Petitioner
Versus
National Textile Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager (Human Resources), Coimbatore and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 6334 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 14-06-2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy Row & Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. C.V. Vijaya kumar Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, Advocates.
The right to form Trade Unions is a fundamental right, and the statutory provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 impose a duty on the employer to deduct and remit subscription payable by the members of the Trade Unions.
Headnote:
Trade Unions - Deduction of Subscription - Trade Unions Act, 1926, Section 6(ee), Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 7(2)(kkk)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, registered Trade Unions, sought to quash an order refusing to deduct subscription from their members and remit the same to the Unions' account. The respondents argued that only recognized Unions could have subscription deducted. The petitioners contended that the refusal violated the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and a previous court decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to deduct subscription from willing members of the petitioners' Unions was unjustified and violated the statutory provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were justified in refusing to deduct subscription from the members of the petitioners' Unions and remit the same to the Unions' account despite the authorization given by the individual workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to form Trade Unions is guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. It also emphasized the statutory duty of the employer to deduct and remit subscription payable by the members of the petitioners' Unions, as per the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondents were directed to deduct membership contribution payable to the Unions from the salary of willing members based on their written authorization and remit the same into the account of the petitioners from a specified date.
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
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 (State Bank Staff Union v. State Bank of India) 1989 (1) LLJ 554.
(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 wit
