Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S.D. RANE & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1559 1996 SCC (3) 504
1996 SCALE (2)800
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on
September 7, 1983 in W.P. No.3038 of 1983. The appellant is
a rival trade union under M/s. Chemicals & Fibers of India
Ltd. [formerly ICI India Ltd.]. The Industrial Court in the
order had pointed out that the total employees as on June
15, 1981 were 811 and the respondent-union had a strength of
448 as against the appellant-rival union having strength of
241. Thus it was held to be a recognized union. The
appellant had challenged the procedure adopted by the
investigating officer under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (1
of 1971) (for short, ’MRTUPULP Act’).
Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the Investigating Officer was not justified
in law in conducting spot verification and calling employees
either by alternate number and verifying the same and that
the procedure, therefore, was clearly illegal. It is not in
dispute that the investigation requires to be done by the
investigating officer in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Act. This Court in Automobile Products
of India Employees’ Union vs. Association of Engineering
Workers Bombay, [(1990) 2 SCC 444] had held that the scheme
relating to the recognition was to be done in accordance
with the Act. Even if the parties consented to identify the
number of employees in the Company by secret ballot, that
method was not warranted by law and consent did not cure the
illegality of substitution of a procedure not prescribed
under the Act. The same view was reiterated by this Court in
Association of Engineering Workers vs. Dockyard Labour Union
& Ors., [(1995) Supp. 4 SCC 544]. Consequently, the
investigating office is required to conduct investigation in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act.
In this case, the Industrial Court had directed the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
investigating officer by his order dated November 17, 1980
to give opportunity to the parties and then to conduct the
enquiry in terms of its previous order dated October 5,
1979. In furtherance thereof, the investigating officer
called upon the appellant as well as the respondent-Union to
submit the list of members of the respective associations.
He initially had verified the lists and thereafter made spot
verification that the basis. He submitted a report stating
that "as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Member,
Industrial Court, the undersigned conducted the enquiry on
the spot in the presence of the two representatives of each
union and members of the non-application employees." This
report of the total number of respective unions was accepted
by the Industrial Court and upheld no doubt not by a very
reasoned order, by the summary order. The Division Bench did
not interfere after perusal of records, since no error of
law would be noticed. Hence this appeal.
Under Section 14 of the Act, the prohibition to make a
fresh application was imposed for a period of two years;
further making of an application within one year from the
date of order passed by the Industrial Court was prohibited.
In other words, after the expiry of two years, if any rival
union seeks any recognition, the Industrial Court is
required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 14
of the act and then to take a decision according to law.
Since the order was passed by the Industrial Court in the
year 1983 and sufficient time has already elapsed, the
embargo under Section 14 of the Act no longer is available.
Therefore, if the appellant still seeks any recognition of
the appellant-Union in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, it would be open to adopt such procedure as is
available under law.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.