Karnataka High Court
Udupi Power Corporation Limtied vs The Assistant Labour Commissioner on 4 April, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.36487 OF 2019(L-RES)
BETWEEN:
UDUPI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.160, OM CHAMBERS
2ND FLOOR, IST MAIN ROAD
SHESHADRIPURAM, NEAT TOTAL GAZ PUMP
BENGALURU - 560 020
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. SANJAY ARGADE
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT-HUMAN RESOURCES
HAVING ITS POWER PLANT AT YELLURU VILLAGE
PILAR POST, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 113
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.R.NARAYANA RAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND SUB-REGISTRAR UNDER
TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926
MANGALURU DIVISION
PRAKRUTHI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, KADRI KODIYAL BYLE POST
MANGALURU - 575 003.
2
2. UPCL EMPLOYEES UNION
CITU OFFICE, KRISHNA KRIPA BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
UDUPI - 576 101
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DEVAAJ C.H. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI A.J.SRINIVASAN FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:12.4.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT
ANNEXURE-A & RESTRAIN THE R-2 FROM IN ANY MANNER
CANCASING THAT IT IS A UNION OF THE PERMANENT
EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONERS & ETC
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 06/03/2024 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, Udupi Power Corporation Limited is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash order bearing No.¸ÀPÁDªÀÄ/nAiÀÄÄJ/DgïfJ£ï/2813/2018 dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure-A) by which, first respondent registered the second respondent 'UPCL Employees Union' under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short "1926 Act") and petitioner has 3 also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the second respondent from in any manner canvassing that it is a Union of permanent employees of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.H.R.Narayan Rao for Sri.P.N.Rajeshwara, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Devaraj.C.H., for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.A.J.Srinivasan for respondent No.2-Union. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that eight persons who are not permanent employees on the rolls of the petitioner/Company submitted application in Form-A along with Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 in terms of Section 4 of 1926 Act to the first respondent to register a Trade Union in the name and style of 'UPCL Employees Union'. On submission of application for registration, concerned Labour Inspector was directed to inspect the premises and verify the information furnished under letter dated 15.02.2018 of first respondent. Labour Inspector, Udupi visited the petitioner-Company on 28.02.2018 and said to have 4 submitted report dated 12.03.2018 to the respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner filed its objection on 01.03.2018 requesting first respondent not to register Trade Union contending that the persons who intend to form themselves into a Union are not the employees of the petitioner, but were contract workers. Further, learned counsel would contend that the registered Trade Union by contract workers in the name and style of 'UPCL Employees Union' would be misleading and misusing the name of UPCL. Learned counsel would further submit that process of registration of the second respondent/Union is opposed to first proviso to Section 4(1) of 1926 Act and it would not satisfy Section 4(1) of 1926 Act. Second respondent also submitted its rejoinder to the objections and the petitioner has also submitted its counter reply. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering the objections of petitioner, first respondent proceeded to register the second respondent/Union. Learned counsel would submit that the persons employed by security agencies and contract labourers have no right to form Trade Union and therefore the first 5 respondent could not have registered second respondent- Trade Union. Learned counsel would submit that the whole purpose of 1926 Act would defeated by allowing registration of second respondent, when all its members are not employees/workmen of the petitioner/company. It is submitted that pre-fixing the acronym of petitioner/company by second respondent/union is totally undesirable, since the members of second respondent/Union are not the permanent employees of petitioner/company.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by first respondent and would submit that registration is in accordance with the provisions of 1926 Act.
5. Learned counsel for second respondent would support the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate and would further submit that petitioner/company has no right to object for registration of second respondent/Union. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of definition of 'Trade Union' under Section 2(h) of 1926 Act 6 would submit that temporary or permanent employees could form Union and further learned counsel would submit that in terms of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, members of second respondent/Union have a right to form Association or Union. Thus, learned counsel would pray for rejection of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, "Whether the impugned order of registration of second respondent/Union under 1926 Act requires interference by this Court?"
7. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
A registered Trade Union means a Trade Union registered under the 1926 Act. Trade Union is defined under Section 2(h) of 1926 Act which reads as follows:
"2. Definitions.-- In this Act, 'the appropriate Government' means, in relation to 7 Trade Unions whose objects are not confined to one State, the Central Government, and in relation to other Trade Unions, the State Government, and, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--
(h) "Trade Union" means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen, or between employers and employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and includes any federation of two or more Trade Unions;"
A reading of the above definition would makes it clear that Trade Union could be formed either by temporary or permanent employees, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating relationship between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers or for imposing restriction and conditions on the conduct of any trade or business.
8
8. Section 4 of 1926 Act provides for mode of registration. Any seven or more members of a Trade Union could apply for registration of Trade Union. First proviso to Section 4 (1) would state that no Trade Union of workmen shall be registered unless at least ten percent or one hundred of the workmen, whichever is less, engaged or employed in the establishment or industry which it is connected are the members of such Trade Union on the date of making of application for registration. Section 5 provides for details of application for registration. Section 7 provides for calling further particulars and to require alteration of name. Section 8 provides for registration and Section 9 provides for issuance of certificate of registration. On submission of application under Section 4 of 1926 Act, Registrar shall get report from the Labour Inspector, on inspection with intimation to the concerned employer with regard to particulars provided by the applicants for registration of a Union.
9
9. In the case on hand, the Registrar, before proceeding to register, obtained report from the Labour Inspector (Annexure-F) and thereafter proceeded to register the Union. The report of the Labour Inspector would indicate that the applicants who submitted application under Section 4 for registration of Trade Union are the workmen appointed through contractor and petitioner has employed 900 contract workmen and about 300 permanent workmen. By registration of Union the status of its members is not adjudicated.
10. The scheme of the Act or provision of the Trade Union Act would not confer any right on the petitioner to object registration of Trade Union in terms of Section 4 or 8 of 1926 Act. As noticed above, in terms of definition of Trade Union, combination of permanent or temporary employees could form Trade Union. The 1926 Act would not prohibit formation of Union by temporary employees or contract employees. Moreover, in terms of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, formation of Union or Association is a 10 fundamental right and formation of Union could be only restricted by reasonable restrictions. When the petitioner admits that the persons who submitted application for registration of second respondent/Trade Union are contract employees working in the petitioner/establishment, petitioner could not have objected for formation of Trade Union.
For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE MPK/-*/NC CT:BMS