Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. A
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1988
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
BENCH:
OZA, G.L. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 633 1988 SCR (2) 825
1988 SCC (1) 640 JT 1988 (1) 231
1988 SCALE (1)208
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/lndustrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957:
Section 3/Rules 39 & 41 to 43-Works Committee-Election
on basis of division of constituencies-Whether valid and
permissible.
HEADNOTE:
%
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court
for quashing the order dated 31.1.1984 of the authorities,
informing the respondent Union about the scheme of election
to the Works Committee to be constituted for the period
1984-86, on the basis of division in different
constituencies under the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957, framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The High Court held that such a distribution of
constituencies was not permissible in view of the scheme of
the Rules, especially Rules 39, 41. 42 and 43.
In the appeal by special leave, on behalf of the
appellants it was contended that such a division of
constituencies to give appropriate representation to various
sections, groups and categories of workers, skilled,
unskilled, clerical and otherwise, was justified under Rule
39 and proviso to Rule 43.
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that
while Rule 42 contemplated only division in two
constituencies, that is, those who were members and those
were not, of a registered trade union, it further provided
that where more than half the workers belonged to one
registered trade union, there was no need for any division
of constituencies, and election will be only by general vote
of workers of the industry and, therefore, the High Court
was right in holding that the division of constituencies as
contemplated in the aforesaid order was not permissible.
Dismissing the appeal,
826
^
HELD: The scheme of the Industrial Disputes (Control)
Rules, 1957 for the constitution of Works Committee clearly
provides that (a) where there is a registered trade union
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
having more than SO per cent membership of the workers in
that establishment, the total number of members of the Works
Committee will be elected without distribution of any
constituencies; and (b) if in an industry, no trade union
registered under the Trade Unions Act represents more than
50 per cent of the members, then only the election will be
held in two constituencies, one from the members of the
registered trade union or unions and the other from non-
members of the trade unions and it is only in this
contingency, it is further provided that, if the employer
thinks proper, may further sub divide the constituency into
department, section or shed. [832C-E]
When there is a registered trade union in an
establishment, having more than 50 per cent membership, the
exercise under Rule 43 of the Industrial Disputes (Control)
Rules, 1957 is futile and is not called for. [832F-G]
In the instant case since the respondent union’s
membership is more than 50 per cent, the distribution of
constituencies under Rule 42 is not contemplated and,
therefore, there is no occassion for Rule 43 or proviso
therein to come into operation. [832G ]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 341 of
1988.
From the Judgment and order dated 2.4.1986 of the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1946 of 1984.
D.N. Devedi. C. Ramesh and P. Parmeshwaran for the
Appellants.
R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OZA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by
the Union of India against a judgment passed by High Court
of Bombay in Misc. Petition No. 1946/84 decided on 2.4.1986.
A Writ petition before the High Court was filed by
M.T.S.S.D. Workers’ Union, Pune and two of the employees in
the establishment in which this union is functioning. In
this Writ Petition an order was sought quashing the decision
of the
827
authorities concerned of the petitioner who by their order
dated 31.1.1984 informed the union about the scheme of the
election to the Works Committee on the basis of the division
in different constitutencies. This order of the Commandant
was conveyed to the respondent union. These Works Committees
were to be constituted for the period 1984-86.
The question that was considered by the High Court was
as to whether such a distribution was permissible under the
Rules framed under Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment came to
the conclusion that such a distribution of constituencies is
not permissible in view of the scheme of the Rules
especially Rules 39,41,42 and 43 of the Central Rules framed
under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended
that Rule 39 when it talks of representation to the various
categories and groups and class of workmen it contemplates
that such constituencies be divided so that various
sections, groups and categories of workers skilled,
unskilled, clerical and otherwise may get appropriate
representation. Learned counsel also relied on the proviso
to Rule 43 to justify the division of the constitutencies
which was done by the impugned order which was set aside by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel for the respondent
on the other hand contended that the Works Committees are
expected to go into day to day problems and they are
expected to be so constituted that they bring harmony and
better functioning of the industry and it is for this
purpose. According to the learned counsel Rule 42
contemplates only division in two constitutencies that is
those who are members of a registered trade union and those
who are not members of the registered trade union and even
while providing for such a distribution in Rule 42 it has
been further provided that where more than half the workers
belong to one registered trade union then there is no need
for any division of constituencies and election will only be
by general vote of the workers in the industry. It was
contended by learned counsel that this scheme of these Rules
contemplates that where there is a union representing the
majority of workers there is no occasion for any
distribution of constituencies so that the union and the
management with the help of the Works Committee may resolve
day to day problems and the industry may run smoothly in the
interest of production and industrial peace. He, therefore,
contended that the order passed by the Bombay High Court in
the scheme of the Rules is justified.
828
The constitution of the Works Committees has been
provided for in Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 which reads as under:
"3. Works Committee:(1) In the case of any
industrial establishment in which one hundred or
more workmen are employed or have been employed on
any day in the preceding twelve months the
appropriate Government may by general or special
order require the employer to constitute in the
prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of
representatives of employers and workmen engaged
in the establishment so however that the number of
representatives of workmen on the Committee shall
not be less than the number of representatives of
the employer. The representatives of the workmen
shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from
among the workmen engaged in the establishment and
in consultation with their trade union, if any,
registered under the India Trade Unions Act, 1926
(XVI of 1926).
(2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to
pro mote measures for securing and preserving
amity and good relations between the employer and
workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters
of their common interest or concern and endeavour
to compose any material difference of opinion in
respect of such matters."
It is clear from the language used in this Section that
the representatives of workmen shall be chosen in the
prescribed manner and it shall be so done in consultation
with their trade union if there is any registered under the
Indian Trade Unions Act.
It is because of this that the Rules have prescribed
the manner in which the Works Committees will be
constituted. In Chapter 7 of the Rules framed under
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 it has been
provided for a constitution of the Works Committee. Rule 39
on which much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the
appellants reads:
"Number of members-The number of members
constituting the Committee shall be fixed so as to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
afford representation to the various categories,
groups and class of workmen engaged in, and to the
sections, shops or departments of the
establishment:
829
Provided that the total number of members shall
not exceed twenty:
Provided further that the number of
representatives of the workmen shall not be less
than the number of representatives of the
employer."
This Rule talks of the number of members to constitute
a Works Committee and it has been provided that the number
shall be so fixed keeping in view that representation could
be made in the Committee of workers engaged in different
sections, shops, departments of the establishment. It was
contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was
because of this that the management in this industry chose
to distribute the constituencies in such a manner that there
may be representatives in the Works Committee of different
sections and departments of the industry. But it is clear
that Rule 39 does not talk of any distribution of
constituencies.
The relevant Rule which provides for group of workmen’s
representatives is Rule 42 but Rule 41 contemplates
consultation with the trade unions and where there is a
registered trade union the management is expected to ask the
registered trade union to give information as to how many of
the workmen are members of the union and how their
membership is distributed among the sections, shops and
departments of the establishment. Rule 41 reads as under:
"Consultation with trade unions: (1) Where any
workmen of an establishment are members of a
registered trade union the employer shall ask the
union to inform him in writing
(a) how many of the workmen are members of the
union; and
(b) how their membership is distributed among the
sections, shops or departments of the
establishment.
(2) Where an employer has reason to believe that
the information furnished to him under sub-rule
(1) by any trade union is false, he may, after
informing the union, refer the matter to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned
for his decision; and the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), after hearing the parties,
shall decide
830
the matter and his decision shall be final."
Rule 42 reads thus:
"Group of workmen’s representatives: on receipt of
the information called for under Rule 41, the
employer shall provide for the election of
workmen’s representative on the Committee in two
groups:
(1) those to be elected by the workmen of the
establishment who are members of the
registered trade union or unions, and
(2) those to be elected by the workmen of the
establishment who are not members of the
registered trade union or unions.
bearing the same proportion to each other as the
union members in the establishment bear to the
non-members:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
Provided that where more than half the
workmen are members of the union or any one of the
unions, no such division shall be made:
Provided further that where a registered
trade union neglects or fails to furnish the
information called for under sub-rule (1) of Rule
41 within one month of the date of the notice
requiring it to furnish such information such
union shall for the purpose of this rule be
treated as if it did not exist:
Provided further that where any reference has
been made by the employer under sub-rule (2) of
Rule 41, the election shall be held on receipt of
the decision of Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central. )"
This Rule clearly provides that the workers’ representatives
in the Committee will be in two groups:(1) those who are
elected by the workmen who are members of the registered
trade union or unions and (2) other those who will be
elected by the workmen of the establishment who are not
members of the registered trade union or unions and it is
further provided that this number would bear the same
proportion to each other as the union members in the
establishment bear
831
to the non-members. That clearly shows that if in an
industry there is or are registered trade unions and they
have their membership as the management will know under the
scheme of Section 41, the management will fix the number of
seats in the Works Committee to be elected by the members of
the union and by those who are not the members of the union
and the ratio between the members representing the union
members and the members representing those who are not union
members will be the same as membership of the union vis-a-
vis non members in the establishment.
There is yet another proviso which provides that where
more than half the workmen are members of the union or any
one of the unions no such division will be made. This
clearly goes to show that where in an industry or an
establishment the majority of the workers are in one union
the distribution as provided in Rule 42 will not be
necessary, it will only be one constituency. This scheme of
Rule 42 read with this proviso clearly goes to show that
where there is any registered trade union representing the
majority of workers (more than 50%) the question of
distribution of constituencies does not arise. Learned
counsel for the appellant also contended that proviso to
Rule 43 contemplates division of the constituencies into
various sheds, departments and sections as was done by the
management which was quashed by the High Court. Rule 43
reads as under:
"43. Electoral constituencies: Where under Rule 42
of the workmen’s representatives are to be elected
in two groups, the workmen entitled to vote shall
be divided into two electoral constituencies, the
one consisting of those who are members of a
registered trade union and the other of those who
are not:
Provided that the employer may, if he thinks
fit, subdivide the Electoral constituency or
constituencies, as the case may be and direct that
workmen shall vote in either by groups, sections
shops or departments."
This Rule starts with a situation where under Rule 42 the
workmen’s representatives are to be elected in two groups
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
and where such a situation exists. The proviso further
provides that if the employer thinks fit may sub-divide the
electoral constituencies in a manner so that the workers may
vote either by groups or by sections or by departments. But
it is clear from the language of this Rule that this sub
division of constituencies only could be done if Rule 43
comes into
832
operation. Admittedly in the present case in this industry
the respondent trade union represents the majority of the
workers that it has more than SO per cent as its members and
the occasion for distribution of the works committee into
two constituencies as contemplated in Rule 42 does not arise
and if it is not so then Rule 43 does not come into
operation at all as Rule 43 itself clearly states that this
Rule only comes into operation "where under Rule 42 the
workers representatives are to be elected in two groups". It
is therefore clear that this proviso to Rule 43 is not an
independent substantive provision and therefore on this
basis the contention advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants is of no substance.
It is therefore clear that the scheme of these Rules
for constitution of Works Committees clearly provide:(a)
where there is a registered trade union having more than SO
per cent membership of the workers in that establishment the
total number of members of the Works Committee will be
elected without distribution of any constituencies:(b) if in
an industry no trade union registered under the Trade Unions
Act represents more than 50 per cent of the members then
only the election will be held in two constituencies, one
from the members of the registered trade union or unions and
the other from non members of the trade unions and it is
only in this contingency it is further provided that if the
employer thinks proper may further sub divide the
constituency into department, section or shed. This clearly
indicates that there may be a situation in an particular
establishment where some section may have no membership of
any trade union at all whereas in other sections there may
be membership of trade unions then if under Rule 42 it has
to divide in two constituencies that is members of the
registered trade union and non members. It may further sub-
divide in order to provide for representation to any section
of workmen who have no representation in any trade union at
all. It is therefore clear that when there is a registered
trade union in an establishment having more than SO per cent
membership this exercise under Rule 43 is futile and is not
called for as in this case as admittedly the respondent
unions membership is more than 50 per cent. The distribution
of constituencies under Rule 42 is not contemplated and
therefore there is no occasion for Rule 43 or proviso
therein to come into operation. In this view of the matter,
in our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is correct
and we see no reason to interfere with it. The appeal is
therefore dismissed. In the Circumstances of the case,
parties are directed to bear their own costs.
N. P V. Appeal dismissed.
833