Madras High Court
M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, ... vs M/S. L.M.W. Workers Union, Coimbatore on 20 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)IILLJ30MAD, (1997)IMLJ348
Author: A.R. Lakshmanan
Bench: A.R. Lakshmanan
ORDER
1. The civil revision petition was admitted by w this Court on April 26, 1994 and notice was ordered to the respondent. Notice was served on the respondent through Court on April 19, 1995. Today, when the revision was taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf th of the respondent. The respondent is also called absent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated February 8, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1993 allowing the appeal and to setting aside the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 389 of 1993 in O.S. No. 370 of 1993 and granting ar temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit.
3. The petitioner is a public limited company to engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophist cated textile machineries of superior quality, accessories and other products. According to the petitioner, there are at present 2,330 workers besides other staff and executives employed in the company. The workers of the petitioner ar company are regulating their relationship with the management through L.M.W. Labour Progressive Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union). The members of the Union are having a check off facility, by which each worker has authorised the petitioner to deduct the annual subscription from their wages once in a year and remit the same to the Union. When this practice was in vogue, the management received a communication on December 21, 1992 from the respondent informing the management about the election of its office bearers on December 20, 1992 and requesting the management to discuss the issues of labour disputes with its office bearers. According to the management, the respondent-Union is of a very recent origin.
4. The petitioner would submit that on January 31, 1993, the respondent instigated the workers to go on strike setting out several demands. This was done by the respondent quite obviously with a view to gain quick and cheap popularity. According to the management they had received complaints from workers that they are intimidated and forced to sign forms and some of them were beaten up and hospitalised. By its letter dated December 26, 1992, the respondent informed the management that no deduction of wages, bonus, incentive, donation or subscription should be made from the workers. On January 20, 1993, the Union, which was recognised by the management, had complained that the respondent is indulging in tactics of creating dissensions among the workers and also indulging in other unhealthy practices. The Union cautioned the management not to act upon such records.
5. The petitioner would submit that the respondent on January 22, 1993 came up with the claim that 699 workers have resigned from the Union and joined the respondent. The respondent sought to produce a copy of the same as Document No. 4 wherein the number has been altered. The respondent has also claimed that 1, 125 workers have joined its union. The Union while disputing the claim of the respondent contended that the workers have not resigned s from the Union and that there are efforts to coerce the workers to sign some printed forms by misrepresentation and intimidation without explaining the contents and purport of the same. The management, therefore, wrote to the Union on January 23, 1993 informing the claim of the respondent and seeking their clarification in the matter. The Union replied to the petitioner disputing the claim of the respondent and requesting the management not to act upon the false is representation of the respondent.
6. Faced with the conflicting claims of the Union and the respondent, management called upon individual workers to ascertain the factum of the truth and validity of the claim of alleged resignation put forth by one union and disputed by the other. Ale Assistant Commissioner of Labour Ill, Coimbatore, also advised to follow that course. All the workers were intimated on February 12, 1993 by a general notice to appear in the Personnel Department and clarify their position. They were requested to come individually without any aid or supporter to clarify their stand in the matter. It was also notified that if the workers fail to appear on the specified date to clarify their stand on their alleged intimation letters in dispute, they will not he taken up for consideration at all. However, only 28 workers appeared in the Personnel Department, out of which 25 workers informed that they have resigned from the Union and the remaining three stated that they have not resigned from the Union. Their statements have been recorded.
7. The petitioner submits that on February 15, 1993, the management has intimated to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Ill, Coimbatore, that in pursuance of his advice, the management called upon the workers in dispute as to their membership in the rival Union and reveal their stand as to the factum of resignation, on which the Union and the respondent are not accepting the claim of each other. The Assistant so Commissioner of Labour was also informed that out of 606 workmen claimed to have resigned, only 28 workmen have appeared before the Personnel Department and revealed their stand. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour was also informed that 25 workmen have confirmed their communication regarding their resignation while three disowned the same. The management, therefore, communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the remaining 581 communication letters on their alleged resignation did not deserve consideration as the management has already informed the workers that they will not be considered if the concerned workers do not appear to affirm or is deny the contents thereof.
8. The petitioner submits that under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent filed O.S. No. 370 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, for a permanent injunction restraining the management from deducting the union subscription from the salary of the respondent - Union members. The respondent has also filed I.A. No. 389 of 1993 for interim injunction restraining the management from deducting the union subscription from the salary of the respondent - Union members pending disposal of the suit. The management contested the said application by filing a detailed counter statement. The trial Court after considering the documentary evidence and other records, dismissed that application. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent has filed C.M.A. No. 32 of 1993 on the file of 35 die District Court, Coimbatore. The learned Additional District Judge allowed that appeal and granted an order of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the management has filed the present revision in this Court.
9. I have gone through the entire pleadings and also the orders passed by the Courts below. In my opinion, the order of the First Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside for the reasons to be stated infra. It is the contention of the management that only 28 workers have appeared pursuant to the request made by the management and revealed their stand. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour was informed that only 25 workers have confirmed their resignation while three disowned the same. It is not in dispute that there are at present 2,330 workers besides other staff and executives in the petitioner-Company. The respondent, in my opinion, has no right or locus standi to meddle with the affairs of another union or its membership or payment of subscription to another nor claim to act as an agent of the workers in the matter of membership or resignation from another union. Admittedly, the respondent-Union is of a very recent origin. The respondent, in my opinion, has unnecessarily dragged the management into an unwarranted litigation.
10. On their own showing of the respondent is in its pleadings, it is for the individual worker to ascertain to continue or to withdraw his request for the cheek off facility and it is not a matter where the respondent-Union shall interfere. The respondent-Union is not a subscriber and it is not in the pay roll. The respondent is also not paying any subscription nor enjoying any check off facility with the management. The management is not exercising or withdrawing any check off facility of the respondent-Union. Further, the respondent is not affected by the exercising or withdrawal of the check off facility. It is settled law that the check off facility is a matter strictly followed between the worker and the management and the respondent has no say in the matter and it cannot interfere into the same. The respondent has no locus stands to represent the individual workers in so far as the check off facility is concerned. I am unable to appreciate the order of the Appellate Court granting the relief sought for by the respondent which, in my opinion, cannot be granted at the instance of the respondent in view of the fact that the membership of the union is a flexible one and depends upon the state of affairs on a relevant date. The Appellate Court has erred in relying upon the letter of the Assistant Commissioner of labour dated February 26, 1993 without appreciating that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has no jurisdiction to decide about the membership of the respondent-Union and the matter before him was not an industrial dispute.
11. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the relief sought for in the suit and in the interlocutory application is one and the same and that such a prayer cannot be granted as the membership of the respondent-Union cannot be a fixed one. In the instant case, the Appellate Court has granted the main relief itself at the interlocutory stage. The Appellate Court, in my opinion, has miserably failed to see and appreciate that the purpose of the interlocutory orders is to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties so that the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral order and by one side or other during its pendency. The reliance placed by the Appellate Court in regard to the alleged resignation of the membership from the existing union itself is not proper. It is seen is from the records that the said claim is in dispute and therefore, the same has to be decided in the suit only. As noticed earlier, no individual worker except 25 out of 2,330 workers, in spite of notification to that effect, has come forward with the statement that he has resigned from the Union and that he did not want to pay subscription, to that Union. When the employees in spite of notification to appear before the Personnel Department have failed to appear, the Appellate Court ought to have rejected the case of the respondent as the individual employee did not come forward with a request to withdraw the cheek off facility. The finding of the Appellate Court that a considerable number of members have resigned from the Union and have become members of the respondent-Union is without any basis or material. In my opinion, this conclusion can be arrived at only after trial. So, the above finding of the Appellate Court is unsustainable. The order of the Appellate Court only discloses the total non-application of mind and the same has been rendered mechanically.
12. The respondent has not established any prima facie case in its favour. Balance of convenience lies only in favour of the petitioner-management. Further, the respondent will not be prejudiced in any manner or suffer any irreparable loss or injury if the injunction is not granted.
13. The matter in issue is also covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. Mohan, Officiating Chief Justice and K. Venkataswami, J., (as they then were) reported in State Bank of India Staff Union v. State Bank of India, (1989-I-LLJ-554), wherein the Bench held that the check off facility is one given to the individual employee on his. Voluntary written request and it will he in force till the said individual employee withdrew the same. It is to be remembered that either for giving voluntary request or for withdrawing the same, the union has no say. In the instant case, there is no proof that the individual employees have withdrawn the check off facility. Therefore, the said facility will be in force till the said individual employees withdraw the same. This apart, this matter can be decided only at the trial of the suit and not at the interlocutory stage.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P., No. 6445 of 1994 is dismissed as no longer necessary.