Kerala High Court
Lissie Asupathri Thozhilali Union And ... vs Dy. Registrar Of Trade Unions on 24 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)SLJ479(KERALA)
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C. Kuriakose
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
1. An unregistered trade union by name "Lissie Asupathri Thozhilali Union", represented by its Secretary one K.L. Paul and six others who claimed to be members of the said union being aggrieved by the order passed by the Registering Authority under the Trade Unions Act (The Deputy Registrar of Trade Union, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum) preferred an appeal under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Act before the Statutory Appellate Authority, the District Judge, Ernakulam. The appeal was unsuccessful and hence the present revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
2. Registering Authority had the application enquired into by the Assistant Labour Officer of Ernakulam 1st Circle area in which the employer hospital and the applicant trade union are situated. It was reported by the Assistant Labour Officer that none of the applicants were employees of the Lissie Medical Institutions at Ernakulam. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the Secretary of the so-called union and the other applicants as to why the application should not be rejected. Though the Joint Secretary of the union submitted an explanation, he has not able to produce any evidence in proof of the claim that the members of his union were employees of the Lissie Hospital. The enquiry conducted by the Assistant Labour Officer pursuant to the direction of the Registering Authority reveals that the applicants are not employees at all of the concerned hospital. Under such circumstances the application for registration was dismissed.
3. The District Court also concurred with the conclusions of the registering Authority. Before the District Court also absolutely no evidence was produced by the appellants, the present revision petitioners in support of their claim that they are employees of Lissie Hospital.
4. Smt. A.K. Preetha, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and submitted that enquiry in the nature of the one conducted by the Registering Authority as to whether members of the trade union concerned are employees of the institution where they claimed to be workers is not at all contemplated. Counsel invited my attention to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Inland Steam Navigation Workers' Union In re, AIR 1936 Calcutta 57 and submitted that the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act was bound to register the union once it was seen that the objectives of the union did not go outside the objects prescribed by law and all the statutory requirements for registration were complied with. According to the Counsel, the Registrar is not justified in going into other questions. According to learned Counsel, the Registering Authority and for that matter the District Court were not justified in denying registration only on the short score that no evidence had been produced on the question as to whether the revision petitioner No. 2 onwards are employees of the Lissie Hospital.
5. I cannot agree. Section 2(g) and (h) of the Trade Unions Act respectively deal with trade dispute and trade union. A careful scrutiny of these provisions will certainly reveal that an essential qualification in the nature of a sine qua non for any body to form a trade union is that the members of the union are employed in a trade or industry. In the present case the claim of the revision petitioners were specifically that they are employees of the Lissie Hospital and they do not have a claim that they are employed elsewhere. In other words, the question as to whether they are workmen( in this case workmen of Lissie Medical Institutions) certainly has relevance. The Registrar of Trade Unions by directing an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the basic claim that revision petitioner No.2 onwards are employees of the Lissie Hospital has only anxiously considered the correctness of the fundamental premise on which the first revision petitioner trade union would aspire for registration. Section 7(1) of the Trade Unions Act enables the Registrar to call for further information for satisfying himself that the application submitted before him complies with the requirements of Section 5 and also regarding the entitlement of a trade union for registration in terms of Section 6. The enquiry contemplated is a meaningful and objective enquiry regarding the truth of the claims on the basis of which the trade union and its members seek registration. Accepting the argument that an application for registration of trade union will have to be allowed mechanically once the papers are otherwise in order without any reference whatsoever to or enquiry with the alleged employer establishment can result in unjust situations. Section 9-A of the Trade Unions Act dealing with minimum requirement of members clearly shows that employment strength in a particular establishment or industry is a vital consideration even for the existence of a registered trade union.
6. I do not find any illegality or infirmity and much less jurisdictional error about the impugned order having regard to the contours of my jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. as vitiating the order passed by the learned District Judge.
The revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.