Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5880
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ
Shrikrishna Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yogendra Pendse
For the Respondents: Ms. Pavitra Manesh, Ms. P.N. Diwan
Only members with a minimum tenure can invoke Section 28(1A) of the Trade Unions Act; disputes before membership are outside its scope.
Headnote:(A) Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Section 28(1-A) - Expulsion from Union - The interpretation given to Section 28(1-A) is clarified; expulsion before membership doesn’t fall under internal disputes of a union. An individual can approach civil courts for disputes related to membership. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Consent Certificate - The court concluded that the Deputy Registrar must issue a consent certificate allowing the petitioner to approach the Industrial Court following expulsion from the union. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of Bosch Ltd. and former union secretary, was expelled for not satisfactorily responding to a show-cause notice. The petitioner sought judicial review of the expulsion which the authority misapprehended, relying on inapposite precedents.
Findings of Court:
The court rectified the incorrect interpretation and mandated the issuance of a consent certificate to allow the petitioner to seek redressal in an Industrial Court.
Issues: The key issues discussed included the applicability of Section 28(1-A) concerning non-members and the judicial review of internal union matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for harmonious interpretation of union membership disputes within statutory provisions while clarifying that non-members cannot be expelled under the union’s rules.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's membership and expulsion issues. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. misapplication of law regarding membership disputes. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. interpretation of jurisdiction under section 28(1-a). (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments against and in favor of membership dispute resolution. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. adjudgment on distinct case facts. (Para 12) |
| 6. conclusion that the expulsion order is quashed. (Para 13) |
DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J)
1. The Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have instructed the learned Advocate to delete them from the array of the Petitioners. Deletion is permitted on instructions.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
3. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read as under :
“a. This Hon'ble court be pleased to pass an Order of Writ of Certiorari and call for records and proceedings of Order dated 15/04/2024 and be please to quash and set aside the Order dated 15/04/2024 passed by the Ld. Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions Act, 1926 , Nashik Division, Nashik after verifying its legality and proprietary.
b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order directing the Deputy Registrar to issue consent certificate as per K form to the Petitioners as per Exhibit E of this Petition.”
4. The Petitioner claims to be an Employee of a Company, namely Bosch Ltd., for more than 10 years. Respondent No. 3 is a Union of Employees, who are working in the said company. The sole Petitioner was also the General Secretary of the Union from 12.2.2020 till
4.2.2023.
5. The Union issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.2023, to the Petitioner, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be expelled from the Union. The Petitioner replied to the notice on 30.11.2023 asking for 10 days’ time since he was practically given 48 hours to respond to the notice. Subsequently, after considering the reply of the Petitioner, the Union terminated his membership by expelling him on 4.12.2023.
6. The Petitioner, therefore, approached Respondent No. 2 invoking Section 28 (1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 . Respondent No. 2 Authority, relied upon the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees’ Union v/s. D.D. Bambode and Others ,, [(2001) 1 SCC 350.] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that a dispute raised by persons who are yet to become members of the Union, would not be covered by Section 28 (1-A), and refused to grant the Consent Certificate to the said Employees.
7. We find that the Respondent No. 2 Authority has completely misread the facts of the case appearing in Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees’ Union (supra). In the said case, the Employees had applied for membership of the Appellant Trade Union. The membership was refused. The Respondent Workers approached the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union invoking Section 28 (1-A) of the Act. He declined to issue a Consent Certificate.
8. The Bombay High Court interpreted Section 28 (1-A) to conclude that even the person who has applied to become a member of a Trade Union, can apply under section 28(1-A) to raise a dispute for refusal of membership. The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under :
6. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorporating Section 28 -1A is also relevant. It reads as follows:
“The Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 , provides for the registration of Trade Unions, and in certain respects defines the law relating to registered Trade Unions. The Act, however, does not contain any provision for deciding internal disputes in a registered Trade Union. These disputes, which are at present decided by civil courts take a long time to decide with the result, that pending the decision of the dispute, the work of the registered Trade Union, which cannot function, is paralysed. To tide over this difficulty, it is proposed to take power to members of Trade Unions with the consent of the Registrar of Trade Unions to
