Trade Unions must reflect majority strength for negotiations; prior recognition does not grant exclusivity, emphasizing collective bargaining principles.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The appellant, a Trade Union, is aggrieved by the dismissal of its Writ Petition in WP No.19426 of 2011, wherein it prayed for a negative Mandamus directing the respondents viz. the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations of different regions in the State numbering about nine not to entertain any other Trade Union except the appellant for the duration of its recognition with respect to the grievances of the workers particularly with reference to their service conditions.

2. The basis of the Writ Petition was that the appellant was recognized as the majority Union and once the appellant has been recognized as the majority Union, it will alone be entitled to represent the workers of the employers/Transport Corporations and the Management shall not be allowed to dilute the functions of a Trade Union by entering upon negotiations with Trade Unions which do not enjoy the majority support of the workmen.

3. The appellant also relied upon certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which dealt with the concept of collective bargaining and the right of representation of the workmen in dealing with the Management particularly with reference to their service conditions and salaries. It was claimed that the Management entertains the Trade Union sponsored by the ruling political dispensation and therefore, the Trade Union movement as such which was evolved to protect the interest of the workmen is being diluted.

4. After the Writ Petition was entertained, the appellant filed an application for impleading the other Trade Unions in which the workmen of the Transport Corporations were members. Nearly 12 Trade Unions were impleaded. The Writ Court after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellant and after analyzing the law relating to principle of collective bargaining and various precedents of the Courts in India as well as Abroad concluded that a Trade Union cannot seek a restraint on the Management as to who should it negotiate with. On the said conclusion, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. The Writ Court took pains to refer to the practices and also referred to the proceedings of the International Labour Organisation and the relevant Government Orders that were issued from time to time. Reference was also made by the Writ Court to the judgments in Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union, Bombay and another v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 663 , and the judgment in Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India and others , reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 678. It is this dismissal that is subject matter of challenge in this Appeal.

6. We have heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mr.K.Sudalaikannu, for the appellant, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasing, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr.A.Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Babu, for the eleventh respondent, M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 16, 17, and 22 and Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel appearing for the 20^th respondent.

7. While Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the very principle of collective bargaining would lose its sheen, if the Management is allowed to call the Trade Union of