Back
1968 Supreme(All) 86
Allahbad High Court
R.L.GULATI
Imperial Electric Trading Co., Aligarh - Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunal (II), U.P., Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 05/24/1968
S.N. Kacker and V.K. Mehrotra, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Opposite Parties.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Reference of dispute - Competence of union to sponsor dispute - Nature of trade - Similar or allied trade - U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (28 of 1947), Ss. 2(k), 6-I(3).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership concern engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical goods, challenged an order of the Industrial Tribunal (II), Allahabad, rejecting its preliminary objection to the competence of the Dhatu Udyog Mazdoor Sangh (D.U.M.S.) to sponsor a dispute on behalf of its workmen for the payment of bonus for the year 1961-62. The petitioner contended that D.U.M.S. was not entitled to sponsor the dispute as it represented only the workers of the metal industries and that the nature of its trade was different from that of a metal industry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the D.U.M.S. was not competent to sponsor the dispute on behalf of the petitioner's workmen as the nature of the petitioner's trade was entirely different from that of a metal industry. The court further held that the D.U.M.S. could not represent the petitioner's workmen as it was not registered for one trade only and had as its members the workers of the metal industries as well as the workers of the petitioner company.
Issues: 1. Whether the D.U.M.S. was competent to sponsor the dispute on behalf of the petitioner's workmen? 2. Whether the D.U.M.S. could represent the petitioner's workmen?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The nature of the trade of a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical goods is entirely different from the trade of a company engaged in metal industries. 2. A union can only sponsor a dispute on behalf of its members and cannot represent workers of a different trade. 3. A union must be registered for one trade only in order to be competent to represent workers of that trade.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, as well as the notification referring the dispute to the Tribunal.
2. The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods in the name and style of Messrs. Imperial Electric Trading Co. (hereinafter called 'the company'). The company has alleged and the same has not been denied that it produces electric table lamps, wall and ceiling fittings, out of brass circules, pipes, electric wires, switches, glass and plastic shades purchased and imported from outside and that it does not carry on any moulding or casting of any metal goods in the factory. The total number of workers employed by the company at the material time was 25, who had formed themselves into a union known as Imperial Electric Trading Company Workers Union, sometimes in 1956; and the said union was registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, U. P., Kanpur. Sometimes in 1961 this union made radical amendments to its constitution and changed its name to Dhatu Udyog Mazdoor Sangh, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'D.U.M.S.'.
In this union all workers employed in the metal industries of Aligarh were entitled to join. According to the allegation of the petitioner company, one Chandra Bhan, the Secretary of D.U.M.S., filed an application before the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Aligarh, on 7th March, 1963, chiming two months' bonus for each workman of the company for the year 1961-62. The company filed objections contending, inter alia, that the D.U.M.S or its secretary were incompetent to raise any dispute with regard to the petitioner's workmen, inasmuch as the D.U.M.S. represented the workmen of the metal industries only. As no settlement could be arrived between the petitioner and the D.U.M.S., the State of Uttar Pradesh by a notification No. 613 (LC)/XVIII-LA-33 (ARG)/1963, dated 9th August, 1963, referred the following matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (II), U. P., Allahabad.
"Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1961-62 (ending on October 28, 1962)? If so, at what rate and with what other details?"
When the Tribunal took cognizance of the dispute, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the D.U.M.S. was not entitled to sponsor the dispute on behalf of the workmen of the petitioner company and as such the reference itself was incompetent. The company challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the reference made by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The D.U.M.S. filed its written statement through one Chander Singh, its Joint Secretary. At the request of the company the Tribunal proceeded to decide the preliminary objection before embarking on the adjudication of the dispute which related to the payment of bonus. The Tribunal framed the following two issues on the preliminary objections of the company:
"(1) Is the Dhatu Union Mazdoor Sangh, Aligarh, competent to sponsor the case of the workmen concerned? If not, what is its effect?
(2) Have the workmen espoused their own cause properly?
After the parties had filed their written statement and led other evidence, the Tribunal by its order dated 6th November, 1963, rejected the preliminary objection. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition is directed.
3. The Tribunal has accepted the fact that the members of the D.U.M.S. are the workers employed in Metal Industries of Aligarh, but it has expressed the opinion that the petitioner company can also be said to be engaged in metal industry inasmuch as it employs metal as its raw material. According to the Tribunal, it is the raw material employed which would determine the nature of the trade rather than the finished goods produced by the company. The D.U.M.S. was, therefore, competent to take up the cause of the workers of th
