Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 474 (GUJ)

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. V. V. Pandya

2017-02-28

G.R.UDHWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 21.4.2015 passed in Appeal (T.U.) No. 2 of 2014 is under challenge in this petition. A further relief in the nature of direction to the first respondent to verify the membership strength of the respondent union against the first respondent is also sought. The challenge in this petition is to the registration of the respondent No. 2-Chavaj Employees Union under the provisions of the Trade Union Act. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The case of the petitioner is that one Gujarat Kamdar Samaj is a registered trade union espousing the cause of the workmen working in its unit namely Videocon Narmada Glass Division since last several years. On 18.9.2013 the respondent No. 2 - Chavaj Employees Union was formed and an application was submitted by the said union claiming the membership strength of 75 workmen working in the above said division of the petitioner company. It is the case of the petitioner that inaccurate membership strength of the employees working in the said division of the company has furnished to the respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of the Union under the Act so as to show the artificial compliance with Section 4 of the Act. 2. Initially, it seems that the registration was declined for want of required strength of the members with the second respondent union in 2013. Intimation in that regard was given to the petitioner. Aggrieved; the second respondent filed an appeal being Appeal (T.U.) No. 1 of 2013 which came to be allowed on 14.10.2013 remanding the matter to the registering authority. Neither in the original proceedings nor in the remanded proceedings the petitioner was a party. 3. In appeal, though the Government Pleader was engaged to represent the case of first respondent, he did not participate in the proceedings and eventually the direction was issued to the competent authority to issue the certificate of registration to the second respondent on its compliance with the relevant criteria. 4. After remand, the relevant details sought for by first respondent from the petitioner company were supplied by it while pointing out that the verification of all the 79 workmen was not made and only random verification of 26 workmen was made and the certificate of registration was granted without complying with the provisions of the Act. 4. After remand, the relevant details sought for by first respondent from the petitioner company were supplied by it while pointing out that the verification of all the 79 workmen was not made and only random verification of 26 workmen was made and the certificate of registration was granted without complying with the provisions of the Act. Thus, eventually the certificate was granted on 1.12.2014 to the second respondent which came to be unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in Appeal (T.U.) No. 2 of 2014. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the impugned order is that Section 4, inter-alia, requires 10% of the membership with the union aspiring to be registered under the Act. The learned counsel pointed out that the list purportedly containing the membership details of the workmen did not represent the correct facts as it included the persons who had died or retired or were not at all in service. It is argued that though such facts were put to the notice of the first respondent, they were ignored and he proceeded to register the second respondent under the Act illegally and therefore the appeal ought to have been allowed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel contended that if it is held that the appeal at the instance of the petitioner was not maintainable, this Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the first respondent is demonstrated to have acted de hors the provisions of the Act and has illegally registered the trade union. It was argued that the petitioner company has a locus-standi to seek the reliefs prayed for in the petition as the order of registration is palpably illegal. 6. Vehemently opposing the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the order impugned and only aggrieved person can be other union. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon R.G.D. Souza v. Poona Employees Union, AIR 2015 SC 954 : (2015) 2 SCC 526 : LNIND 2014 SC 958 more particularly para 16 which is quoted for ready reference hereafter. "16. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon R.G.D. Souza v. Poona Employees Union, AIR 2015 SC 954 : (2015) 2 SCC 526 : LNIND 2014 SC 958 more particularly para 16 which is quoted for ready reference hereafter. "16. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Certificate of Registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar of Trade Union either on application of a Trade Union inviting the attention of the Registrar of Trade Unions or the Registrar may suo moto take cognizance under the said section. There is no mention in the said provision about cancellation of Registration of Trade Union on application by any other person. The said section permits the Authority to cancel the registration of the trade union if, it is obtained by fraud or mistake, but does not permit the Authority to cancel the certificate of registration if, the same is granted by mistake due to incorrect assessment or non-application of mind or mechanical act on the part of the Authority." 7. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the scheme of Industrial Disputes Act and Gujarat Industrial Relations Act in support of the above contention. 8. Before answering the rival contentions, it would be apt to refer to the relevant scheme of the Trade Union Act, Industrial Disputes Act and Gujarat Industrial Relations Act so as to appreciate the locus of an employer to meddle into the affairs of the trade union of the workmen. Under the Trade Union Act, the mode of registration is provided in Section 4 and application for registration under Section 5 and registration is contemplated in Section 8 and certificate of registration is contemplated in Section 9 and cancellation of the registration is contemplated in Section 10. None of the said provisions contemplated the role of the employer in the process of registration and cancellation. Even the appeal under Section 11 can be made by a person aggrieved by refusal of registration or withdrawal or cancellation of registration and not on grant of registration. Thus no appeal lies against grant of registration. 9. None of the said provisions contemplated the role of the employer in the process of registration and cancellation. Even the appeal under Section 11 can be made by a person aggrieved by refusal of registration or withdrawal or cancellation of registration and not on grant of registration. Thus no appeal lies against grant of registration. 9. Under the Industrial Disputes Act the machinery for resolution of the industrial disputes is contemplated in Chapter II and the protection like notice of change, lay off retrenchment, closure and unfair labour practice have respectively been contemplated in Chapter II-A, Chapter V-A, V-B and V-C. Certain obligations are also cast upon the workmen under Chapter V. Obligation is also cast upon the employer to set up grievance redressal machinery for redressal of individual grievances under Chapter IIB and other machinery are contemplated in Section 6 of the I.D. Act. Under Section 36 the workman who is party to the dispute is entitled to be represented through union, federation of the trade union etc. and the employer is also entitled to be represented through an officer of an association of an employer or federation etc. and excepting individual dispute as contemplated in Section 2A, other industrial disputes can only be raised through union as provided in the scheme of the Act. 10. Similarly Gujarat Industrial Relations Act makes the provisions for registration of union in Chapter III and approved unions in Chapter IV. Nowhere in these proceedings, this Court finds role of the establishment or employer or the company in the matter of registration or approval or cancellation of the union. Chapter V would indicate that an employee can appear in various proceedings against the management/establishment only through representative union or other bodies as may be permissible under the said chapter. Chapter VII cast an obligation upon the employer/establishment to get the standing orders regulating the service conditions of the employee, settled. Chapter VIII contemplates mode and manner of the changes to be effected by employer or employee in regard to the service conditions etc. Joint Management Councils, Conciliation Officer, Arbitration, Labour Courts, Industrial Courts, Wage Boards have been provided in Chapter IX to XIII of this Act. Chapter VIII contemplates mode and manner of the changes to be effected by employer or employee in regard to the service conditions etc. Joint Management Councils, Conciliation Officer, Arbitration, Labour Courts, Industrial Courts, Wage Boards have been provided in Chapter IX to XIII of this Act. It would be noticed from the scheme of the provisions referred to above that the establishment/management/employer and workman/employee have reciprocal obligations to be discharged, and in the event of industrial dispute, said parties would be adversaries and the union of the workmen/employees would be under an obligation to espouse the cause of the workman/employee before appropriate forum under the relevant provisions of law. Thus the interest of workmen/employees union and the establishment/management/employer would often be in conflict in such disputes. Union of the workmen through whom the workmen is statutorily entitled to espouse its grievance must be such as the workmen would instill confidence in it. It is only when independence of the union is ensured that it would be able to discharge its duties to the workman/employees independently and with due diligence. Interference information or registration of union by establishment/management/employer would allow such bodies to influence the union by demonstrating its powers or ability to interfere in their very existence and thus independence of union would be casuality which would be detrimental to the interest of workmen/employees. Such a situation may weaken the bargaining capacity of the weaker section i.e. workmen/employees. Bearing in mind the relevant scheme of the above enactments, it is required to be noted that the principle object of the labour legislation is to maintain the industrial peace and necessity of the labour legislations was felt to balance the unequal bargaining power between the employer and the employees or the workmen. The idea of collective bargaining power came to be introduced by contemplating the formation and registration of the trade union. The industrial dispute can be raised by the employer and the workmen or the employees under the above enactments. However more often than not it is the employees or the workmen who is found to be raising industrial dispute and the industrial dispute at the hands of the employer are rarely noticed. This would mean that the employee or the workman is by and large in the need of support of the union for espousing their grievances. However more often than not it is the employees or the workmen who is found to be raising industrial dispute and the industrial dispute at the hands of the employer are rarely noticed. This would mean that the employee or the workman is by and large in the need of support of the union for espousing their grievances. Allowing the employer to question the existence or registration of the union may result into a leverage to the employer to interfere in the individual affairs of the union. If the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, a day may not be far where the employer may get a political edge bringing down the union to its knees and eventually compromising with the interest of the workmen. If the employer is allowed to say as to how the union should be constituted or the union should be registered, the union may have to toe the lines of the employer; thus eroding the very faith of the workman reposed in the union. 11. It is true that High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide and in a given case can be used for correcting the illegality pointed out to it, but, when exercise of such power is likely to do more harm than advance the ends of justice, the High Courts have always refrained from exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the facts indicated above, would do more harm than the correction of illegality and therefore this Court desists from such exercise. 12. It is pertinent to note that the averments are made in the petition pointing out that there is already in existence a union named Gujarat Kamdar Samaj representing the cause of the workmen. Pertinently, the said union has not so far made any grievance against the registration of the second respondent union. It is not understood as to how the employer can make the grievance against registration of another union. Is it with a view to get rid of inconvenient union? 13. Pertinently, the said union has not so far made any grievance against the registration of the second respondent union. It is not understood as to how the employer can make the grievance against registration of another union. Is it with a view to get rid of inconvenient union? 13. As can be noticed in R.G.D. Souza v. Poona Employees Union (supra), the cancellation of registration sought at the instance of an individual was disapproved and it was emphasised that it is the union only who can be the aggrieved person and who can seek cancellation of the registration of the union. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down in R.G.D. Souza v. Poona Employees Union (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case as well. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is held that the appeal at the instance of the petitioner employer under the Trade Union Act was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed. For cancellation of certificate of registration of the trade union, none except the aggrieved union would have a locus-standi. This Court thus does not find any substance in this petition. The petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.