SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(MP) 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.R. Alam, C.J. and Alok Aradhe, J.
Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress and Anr.
Vs.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.
W.A. No. 304/2009
Decided On: 09.11.2010

The withdrawal of the check-off facility by the management was held to be discriminatory and arbitrary, as it did not have statutory sanction and was not in conformity with the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.

Headnote:

Trade Union - Check-off Facility - Trade Unions Act, 1926, Payment of Wages Act - Section 7(2)(KKK) - Section 23 - Code of Conduct - Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The oldest union engaged in the coal industry, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, claimed to have mass following of about 21000 workers. The union enjoyed the check-off facility under the Payment of Wages Act since 1986. Dispute arose when the management withdrew the check-off facility and permitted verification of authorization forms submitted in favor of affiliates of Central Trade Unions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the withdrawal of the check-off facility by the management was discriminatory and arbitrary, as the requirement of affiliation with central trade unions for availing the facility had no statutory sanction. The court held that the action of the management in withdrawing the check-off facility suffered from the vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The court also rejected the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Issues: The issues involved the withdrawal of the check-off facility, the requirement of affiliation with central trade unions, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of the check-off facility was discriminatory and arbitrary, as it did not meet the test of reasonableness and fairness. The court also emphasized that the action of the management must conform to the rule of law and be subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance, reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality, and non-discrimination.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the check-off facility to the appellant-union. The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 14.7.2007 was also quashed. The writ appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the Appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal, briefly stated, are that the Appellant claims to be the oldest union engaged in the coal industry. It was registered on 15.8.1947 with the Registrar of Trade Unions under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Union was initially registered as Chhattisgarh Colliery Workers' Federation. The name of the Appellant-Union has changed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The Appellant-union claims to have mass following of about 21000 odd workers working in the collieries situate in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The Appellant-union being the oldest Trade Union has been participating in the industrial relation meeting with the Respondent-Management since long. The Appellant has been enjoying the check-off facility since 1986 under the provisions of Section 7(2)(KKK) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Guidelines were issued vide communication dated 20/23-6-2000 in relation to Trade Unions availing the facility of check-off system. In the aforesaid guidelines it was clarified that check-off system is applicable only in respect of Unions which are under the industrial relations system including the Appellant. However, Respondent No. 3 in premeditated manner circulated distorted version of the decision taken in the meeting dated 13.7.2007 and permitted verification of the authorization forms submitted in favour of affiliates of Central Trade Unions.

3. The Appellants being aggrieved by the said communication which had the effect of depriving the Appellants of their legitimate right, submitted a representation (Annexure-P-6 annexed with the writ petition) to the Management. In the meanwhile, Management accepted the participation of Respondent No. 7 i.e. South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress vide Annexure-P-6A annexed with the writ petition. It is averred that membership of Respondent No. 7 is much below the strength of membership of the Appellant-union. Being aggrieved by communication dated 14.7.2007, the Appellants filed the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2007, Annexure-P-5. The Appellant also prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to permit the Appellant to participate in the meeting with the Respondents under the industrial relations system and to restore the check-off facility under the Payment of Wages Act. The Appellants also sought the relief of quashing of Annexure-P-6A by which Respondent No. 7 was permitted to participate in industrial relations system.

4. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed the return in which, inter alia, it was contended that the Appellant has neither any statutory nor any legal right for seeking writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also raised. It was pleaded that disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition which cannot be adverted to in the writ petition. It was further stated that provisions of Payment of Wages Act have no application to the individual as the wages of the employees engaged in the coal industries are more than Rs. 6500/- per month. It was also stated that no writ can be issued for enforcement of check-off system. Respondents No. 1 to 3 also raised the objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the Appellant is challenging the communication dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure-P-5) issued by the General Manager (IR/Legal) from Bilaspur. It was further pleaded that coal industry was nationalized 01.5.1973. In view of the instructions from Union of Indi

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top