SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
All Escorts Employees Union - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)
Decided On : 14-09-2017
Trade Union Membership - Scope of Membership - Trade Unions Act, 1926, Sections 6(e), 9-A, 22 - The court discussed the scope of membership of a trade union and its connectivity with the industry, and the interpretation of Sections 6(e), 9-A, and 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The court emphasized the need for a direct connectivity between the industry and its workers for a trade union to have membership, and the limitations on broadening the scope of membership beyond the employees of a specific establishment. The court also highlighted the purpose of trade unions in regulating relations between workmen and employers, and the restrictions imposed by the Act to prevent multiplicity of trade unions and maintain balance in industrial relations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Union sought to amend its constitution to include workers from a separate industry, Yamaha, within its membership. The Registrar, Trade Union rejected the amendment, leading to a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant-Union argued for the right to represent the workers of Yamaha, while the respondents emphasized the need for direct connectivity between the industry and its workers for trade union membership.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the issue raised did not survive, as the workers of Yamaha had formed their own separate union, which was duly recognized by the management of Yamaha. The court held that the purpose of amending the appellant-Union's constitution was frustrated, and the issue of the amendment carried out in 2001 became a non-issue.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a trade union can have membership of workmen from other industries and whether there needs to be a direct connectivity between the industry and its workers for trade union membership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a direct connectivity between the industry and its workers for a trade union to have membership, and the limitations on broadening the scope of membership beyond the employees of a specific establishment. The court also highlighted the purpose of trade unions in regulating relations between workmen and employers, and the restrictions imposed by the Act to prevent multiplicity of trade unions and maintain balance in industrial relations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the issue raised did not survive, as the workers of Yamaha had formed their own separate union, which was duly recognized by the management of Yamaha. The court held that the purpose of amending the appellant-Union's constitution was frustrated, and the issue of the amendment carried out in 2001 became a non-issue.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Union, known as All Escorts Employees Union, was formed way back in the year 1968. It is a registered Trade Union which was representing the employees of Escorts Group of Industries and is duly recognised by the employers as well. Some of the Establishments of Escorts Group were Escorts Ltd., Escorts Yamaha Ltd., Escorts JCB Ltd., Escorts Class Ltd. And Escorts Hospital. It is an undisputed fact that the workmen from all these industries were members of the appellant-Union. As far as Escorts Yamaha Ltd. is concerned, it was a joint venture of Escorts Management and Yamaha Motor Company, Japan. In the year 2001, this company was taken over by Yamaha Motor Company, Japan and its name was changed to Yamaha Motor India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Yamaha’). After this separation, the workmen working in Yamaha ceased to be the members of the appellant-Union, in view of Clause 4 of its Constitution which spelled out who could be the members of the Union. With an intention to take them within its fold again, the appellant-Union amended Clause 4 of its Constitution. Clause 4 deals with ‘Membership’. As per the amended clause, workers employed in any erstwhile Escorts concern at Haryana are entitled to become the members of the appellant-Union. The aforesaid Clause 4 of appellant’s constitution was amended in June, 2001. This amendment was sent to the Registrar, Trade Union, Haryana for its record and approval. The Registrar, Trade Union did not approve the amendment. Challenging the decision of the Registrar, Trade Union, writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by the appellant-Union. This writ petition has also been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated April 20, 2015.
3. In the challenge laid to the view taken by the High Court, the question of law which is raised by the appellant-Union is as to whether a Trade Union can have a membership of the workmen from other industries? To put it otherwise, whether a Trade Union can have its members who are working in different establishments or industries enabling that Trade Union to espouse their cause?
4. In addition to the aforesaid facts noticed at a glance, it is desirable to set out other facts also so that the factual narration is complete:
The appellant-Union is a registered Trade Union having Registration No. 75 of 1968. It was formed and got registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in the year 1968. Its registered office is located at 29, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad. The Union is duly recognised by the Escorts Group of Industries. The Constitution of the appellant-Union was duly approved by the Registrar of Trade Unions. Clause 4 of the Union’s Constitution, as it originally stood, reads as follows:
“Membership
“Any workers who are employed in any Escorts concern at Faridabad and agree to follow the rules and regulation of the Union can become a member after filling the membership form and by paying the membership fee monthly or annually. Any member who leaves the job of any of Escorts concern at Faridabad will cease to be a member of the Union.”
5. In the month of August, 2001 the establishment manufacturing two wheeler motorcycles under the brand name of ‘Yamaha’ got segregated from the Escorts Group of Industries. Thus, it became a 100% subsidiary of ‘Yamaha Motor Company, Japan’. In view of this separation, the Escorts Group of Companies ceased to have any concern with the manufacturing of motorcycle and ownership or management of motorcycle manufacturing unit which is now exclusively with the ‘Yamaha Motor Company, Japan’ named in India as ‘Yamaha Motor India Private Limited’. The Escorts Company in fact does not have any share-holding with it.
6. Since Clause 4 of the appellant’s Constitution provides membership to those workers who are employed in any Escorts concern at Faridabad, all the workers of Motor Cycle Manufacturing Unit w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.