Delhi District Court
Workmen vs . on 27 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No 80/04
Workmen
Represented by the Press Trust of India Employees Union, Delhi (Regd.)
PTI Building, 4, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001.
Vs.
Management
M/s Press Trust of India Ltd., PTI Building,
4, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001.
Date of institution 01.07.2004
Date of reserving award 18.04.2012
Date of award 27.04.2012
Ref : F.24 (4938)/2003/Lab. 2321-25 dated 07.05.2004
AWARD
1.Workmen have raised the present industrial dispute through Union and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference:-
''Whether the action of the management is not allowing the union to put up its notice board at its original place in premises of PTI and not allowing the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 1 of 20 union to hold its meetings in the union room is legal and justified and if not what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workmen, wherein it is stated that the Press Trust of India Employees' Union is a union registered with the Registrar Trade Union Delhi vide registration no. 223 of 1951 and it has been the sole union exclusively representing all the workmen employed in the Press Trust of India Ltd., Delhi establishment, situated at PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-01 and right from the day, when PTI Building was completed in early 1970s, a room situated in the basement of the PTI Building is exclusively used by the union for holding its meetings etc. and the notice board of the union has been always placed on the first floor of the PTI Building, having the offices of the management, in the gallery near the emergency exit; that the union room in the basement of the PTI Building has been necessary for holding the meetings of the Executive committee of the union and for the office bearers of the union to listen to the day-to-day grievances of the workmen members of the union, while the notice board is meant to inform the workmen about the various decisions taken by the Executive Committee of the union as well as the holding of the General Body Meetings and annual elections of office bearers, besides putting up circulars for the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 2 of 20 information of members; that in the elections of the office bearers of the union held in January, 2002, most of the earlier existing office bearers of the union, who stood for re-election, were defeated by large margins, as most of the workmen members of the union were dissatisfied with such persons, who were perceived to be mere puppets of the management instead of zealous guardians of the interests of the workmen; that the new set of office bearers who were elected, started raising the demands of the workmen with the management vigorously, which was not liked by the management as the earlier office bearers had never dared to raise and pursue the demands of the workmen properly and accordingly, the management instigated the losing office bearers of union to subvert the democratic process and to form a separate union and accordingly, some such members of the union broke away and formed a separate union by the name of PTI Workers Union, Delhi which was got registered with the Registrar Trade Unions only in July 2002; that not only did the management instigate the formation of a rival but puppet union of the management, but it also started victimizing the office bearers of union by leveling false and trumped up charges of misconduct against them and holding them guilty in farcical inquiries held in total disregard of the principles of natural justice; that this union has substantial number of I.D. No. 80/04 Page 3 of 20 employees of the management as its members and despite the threats and inducements of high officials of the management to leave this union, 357 employees of the establishment, out of the total 400, are still the members of this union; that the management in furtherance of its desire to weaken this union and to encourage the workmen to join the rival but puppet union of the management, without any valid justification, on the false pretext of the union activists having indulged in violent or disorderly behavior have prevented the office bearers of the union to hold meetings of the union, as earlier, in the union office located in the basement of the PTI Building on January 18,2003, and specifically with effect from April 18, 2003, which act of the management is totally illegal and unjustified as no meetings of this union held in the union office in the basement has ever been disorderly, unruly or violent and the union has always been prepared to undertake that its meetings in the union office room in the basement of the PTI Building would always be peaceful, but in-spite of that, the management, by way of victimization and clearly as an act of Unfair Labour Practice, has started preventing the union from holding its meetings in the union office, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a demonstration and the meetings of the union in the office room have never affected the smooth and peaceful functioning of the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 4 of 20 working of the management; that in another act of victimization, the management either directly or indirectly through the rival but puppet union of the management got the notice board of the union in the first floor of the PTI Building brought down from the wall and its glass was smashed during office hours on 05.04.2003, so that the union could not effectively communicate its views and happenings to its members; that the malafide role of the management in the pulling down and breaking the notice board of the union, further became clear when despite various oral as well as written requests of the union, the management has not permitted the union to even replace the broken notice board by a new notice board at the same site on the first floor, where it has existed since the PTI Building was constructed; that the act of the management in not allowing the union to put up/replace its broken notice board with the new notice board and not allowing the union to hold its meetings in the union room is totally illegal and unjustified and is causing grave prejudice to the union in properly carrying out its workmen welfare activities. It has been prayed on behalf of workmen that in the interest of justice the reference may kindly be decided in favour of the workmen represented by The Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi after holding that the action of the management in not allowing the union to put up its notice board at its I.D. No. 80/04 Page 5 of 20 original place in the premises of the PTI Building and not allowing the union to hold its meetings in the union room is not legal and justified.
3. Management has filed written statement wherein it is stated that the Press Trust of India Limited (PTI) was established 54 years ago and is a cooperative venture, whose shares are held by major newspapers and publications, with the government having no shares; that Board of Directors of PTI consists of distinguished publishers, editors and eminent public men; that PTI is India's premier news agency which is described by the newspapers and other audio visual media as the lifeline for providing national and international news services round the clock; that PTI has over 450 newspapers subscribing to its services apart from All Radio and Television Networks, National and International news agencies who rely on PTI to provide round the clock news coverage; that now, with the advent of new technology, many web networks have also added to the list of the subscribers of PTI; that there are more than 450 employees in Delhi including 163 full time journalists.
4. Management has taken preliminary objections in the written statement stating that the terms of reference has been made by the Secretary (Labour), Govt of NCT of Delhi without application of mind and even without considering the submissions made by the management I.D. No. 80/04 Page 6 of 20 during the course of conciliation proceedings and therefore, the terms of reference and the resultant proceedings are without jurisdiction; that the alleged union has no locus standi to represent the case of the claimants; that in the present case the statement of claim has been signed by Mr. Balram Singh Dahiya, the Vice-President of the alleged union who is not competent to sign and verify the statement of claim on behalf of the claimants; that there is no authorization on behalf of the claimants in the favour of the signatory of the statement of claim to do so; that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as the same is neither covered under Section 2 (A) nor covered under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the present dispute has not been espoused by the number of employees as required under the law and in the absence of the same the reference as well as resultant proceedings are bad in law and liable to be rejected; that the alleged union namely PTI Employees Union, Delhi committed various act of hooliganism, waylaying, threatening and criminally intimidation, for which the management was constrained to file a civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for restraining the alleged union as well as their so called office bearers and agents from holding any demonstration/blockage etc. and accordingly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed a restraint order for holding any I.D. No. 80/04 Page 7 of 20 demonstration/blockage within a radius of 50 mtrs from the main gate of the PTI building at 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi; that despite the restraint order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the office bearers of the union namely PTI Employees Union, Delhi did not comply with the orders and they have violated the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for which the management was constrained to file contempt petition against the contemners; that they have also been leading demonstrations at the homes of Editor-in-Chief and Chief Executive Officer as well as Chief Administrative Officer in blatant violation of the Hon'ble High Court orders banning any such demonstrations at the homes of the Sr. Officials/Journalists; that the alleged union has assaulted two senior journalists of the company in 2002- 2003 and the police arrested some of the members, who are now out on bail; that the above said union indulged in various illegal, unlawful activities to create nuisance in the organization and also disturbed the industrial peace and harmony, for which the name and reputation of the organization got tarnished in the market; that posters in the vicinity of its subscribers/clients were put up propagating that there was a strike in the officer of the management, which affected the business of the company; that the members have been involved in various activities i.e. putting up I.D. No. 80/04 Page 8 of 20 through its agents defamatory posters in the vicinity of PTI and the residence of Editor-in-Chief and Chief Executive officer, putting up defamatory posters regarding the Regional Manager, threatening calls to the homes of senior persons in the management and other employees, holding a demonstration at the residence of the Regional Manager, holding a demonstration at the residence of the Chief Executive Officer and burning his effigy there, throwing stones which shattered the glass panes of the Chief Executive Officer's office causing him injury, waylaying, attaching, threatening and criminally intimidating Senior Manager (Administration) as he was returning home at night and threatening to shoot the Chief Executive Officer, assaulting, threatening and criminally intimidating Assistant General Manager in New Delhi, stalking and attempting to waylay the Chief Executive Officer and other employees of the company & repeatedly violating orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which have been detrimental to the name and reputation of the management. Apart from the above, the alleged union have put up various inflammatory, abusive and derogatory notices and posters on the notice boards and have defaced the walls of the organization in violation of rules and Hon'ble High Court orders.
5. The management has further stated in written statement that the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 9 of 20 PTI Employees union, Delhi has no majority at all and only few disgruntled persons are the members of the said union and on the other hand, the majority union, if any, is the PTI workers Union, Delhi & majority of the employees of the management are its members; the alleged union namely PTI Employees Union, Delhi had no prescribed place for having a notice board inside the premises nor there is such a right in any manner; that similarly, there is not right of holding the meeting in the alleged union room and there is 'no union room' in the building of PTI at such address. It is stated that the management has no relation whatsoever with union elections. It is stated that the alleged union namely, PTI Employees Union, Delhi filed a suit vide no 807 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against some employees of PTI/their own members making various prayers, inter-alia restraining the defendant to conduct any general body meeting on April 10,2002 or any subsequent day; that the management of PTI was not a made a party to the plaint, however, it was revealed that the employees of PTI (including the defendant) held a meeting on April 10, 2002 and formed a trade union and more than 300 members of the PTI Employees Union, Delhi (applicant union) tendered their resignation from the primary membership of the PTI Employees Union, Delhi as mentioned in the order dated April 15, 2002 of I.D. No. 80/04 Page 10 of 20 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which being highly relevant, is reproduced below :-
"Counsel appearing for the defendant state that the meeting has already been held on April 10, 2002 and out of 430 members of the the Plaintiff No. 1/trade union, more than 300 members have tendered their resignation from the primary membership of the plaintiff no. 1 and that they propose to form a separate trade union and get it registered in accordance with law. It is, however, submitted that he defendants now have no concern with the plaintiff/trade union."
It is stated that only prayer made in the application was that the defendant be restrained from convening and holding the General Body Meeting on April 10, 2002 in pursuance to the notice dated April 8, 2002 or on any other subsequent date. It is further stated that later, the counsel for the plaintiff craved for leave from the Hon'ble Court to withdraw the suit and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further stated that the then newly formed union provided the management with individual copies of resignation from the PTI Employees Union, Delhi and membership to the PTI Workers Union, Delhi and it was totally a voluntary act as I.D. No. 80/04 Page 11 of 20 mentioned before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that nearly 345 employees in the month of June 2004 and July 2003 have given written authorization for the deduction of union subscription payable to the PTI Workers Union Delhi from their salaries. It is stated that the management has not taken any action against any employees considering what is submitted by the claimant as a result of victimization and if at all, action has been taken against certain employees. It has purely been on the basis of an inquiry conducted into charges of indiscipline/misconduct and disciplinary action has been taken considering all aspects and the gravity of misconduct providing fullest opportunity as per the provisions of natural justice. Management has denied that the PTI Employees Union, Delhi is the sole representative of the employees of the management. It is further denied that the management is involved in encouraging any workman to join any union. The other allegations made in the statement of claim have been denied by the management. Management has prayed to dismiss the statement of claim.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.10.2004 :-
1. Whether the dispute raised by the claimants/union is without locus standi ? OPM
2. In terms of reference.I.D. No. 80/04 Page 12 of 20
7. Workmen have examined Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, General Secretary of union as WW 1. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, he has deposed the facts as are mentioned in statement of claim, which facts are mentioned in detail in earlier part of the award and are not being mentioned here to avoid repetition.
8. In his cross-examination, WW 1 has denied the suggestion that the PTI Employees Union had not issued the receipts of subscription to its members. He has deposed that the union had the subscription at the rate of Rs. 120/- per annum from 370 employees for the year 2002. He has denied the suggestion that none of the member has paid the subscription to the union since the year of 2002. He has denied the suggestion that the management has not provided the place to any union and that documents relied upon by him are procured and fabricated documents. He has denied the suggestion that there is no place for the notice board. WW 1, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the notice board, on which the union used to place its notices has been broken down on 5.4.2003 and the union made the police complaint, which is under investigation. He has denied the suggestion that they did not make any police complaint for breaking down the notice board. He has deposed in his cross-examination that the decision to raise the present dispute has been taken by the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 13 of 20 Executive Committee of the union and about more than 200 workers gave in writing to raise the present dispute. He has deposed that there are about 410-420 workers working in the PTI, Delhi and more than 350 workers are members of their union. He has denied the suggestion that about 300 workers resigned from their union. He has denied the suggestion that the union has raised the present dispute as he has been dismissed by the management. He has admitted that he has been removed by the management. He has denied the suggestion that there is a federation for controlling the union and dealing with the management. He has denied the suggestion that the recognized union of the management is PTI Workers Union. WW 1 has deposed further that after management's refusal to allow the union to hold the meeting the union room at the basement of PTI Building, the union held a meeting on 19.04.2003 at the Jantar Mantar and passed the Resolution espousing the present dispute, which is Ex. WW 1/33. He has deposed that the minutes of the meeting of the union executive held on 19.04.2003 were duly recorded in the meeting register of the relevant period but the register is not traceable as it, along with other important union documents, was vandalized and taken away for destroying by the management, about which complaint to the police was filed by him on 09.12.2004, which is also already exhibited as I.D. No. 80/04 Page 14 of 20 Ex. WW 1/11. He has denied the suggestion that neither such meeting at Jantar Mantar was held nor any minutes of meeting were recorded.
9. The claimant union has also examined Sh. J.S. Rawat, Vice-President of PTI Employees Union, Delhi as WW 2. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit he has reiterated the contents of statement of claim. In his cross-examination, WW 2 he has deposed that presently he is working as Transmission Supervisor, but does not supervise any employee. He has deposed that initially he was appointed as attender in the year of 1983 and was promoted as transmission operator in 1986 and then, he was promoted as senior transmission operator in 1992 and then in 1997 as transmission supervisor, on which he is working presently. He has deposed that job of transmission supervisor is to transmit the reports submitted by the reporters. He has denied the suggestion that he is doing supervisory work.
10. Management has examined Sh Manish Mishra, Sr. Manager (HR & Personnel) as MW 1. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, he has reiterated the contents of written statement.
11. In his cross-examination, MW 1 has admitted that he was not in the service of PTI during the time of the dispute was raised. He has also admitted that he was not in the service at the time of incidents I.D. No. 80/04 Page 15 of 20 claimed/alleged in the dispute. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the case. He has admitted that in year 2006, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, New Delhi Zone has passed his order granting 3 office bearers of PTI Employees Union, Delhi status as protected workmen and two office bearers of PTI Workers Union Delhi as protected workmen. He has deposed that he is not aware if any incident of violence, holignism, disturbance etc. occurred during the meetings of the PTI Employees Union held in the premises of PTI. He has denied the suggestion that there was a notice board of the union, which was removed at the instance of the management. He has also denied the suggestion that the management is allowing another union to put up its notices on the notice board in the premises of PTI. He has denied the suggestion that the other union has been alloted a union room by the management. He has denied the suggestion that the PTI Workers Union and federation are the puppets of the management.
12. Management has also examined Sh. Amrit Mohan as MW 2. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, he has deposed that the PTI Workers Union was formed in the year July 2002 and before July, 2002, there was only one union namely PTI Employees' Union, Delhi. He has deposed that due to uncooperative attitude towards the members and I.D. No. 80/04 Page 16 of 20 anti Union activities of the then General Secretary of the PTI Employees' Union, the members decided to form a new union namely the PTI Workers Union, which was subsequently registered under the Trade Union Act. He has further deposed that the members who resigned from the membership of the PTI Employees Union, Delhi, gave their individual request for enrolment to the PTI Workers Union and authorized the said union to deduct their union subscription fee. He has further deposed that there is an apex body of all unions in PTI known as the Federation of PTI Employees Unions and the federation is the umbrella body to which all the local unions of the unions are affiliated. He has deposed that the Federation of PTI Employees Unions de-affiliated the PTI Employees Union, Delhi and affiliated the newly formed PTI Workers Union.
13. In his cross-examination, MW 2 has deposed that he has not brought any document to show that he is the Joint Secretary of PTI Workers Union, Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that their union has not put up any demand before the management at any point of time. He has denied the suggestion that no communication has been held between their union and the management. He has denied the suggestion that those, whose salary slips have been filed, are not members of his union. He has denied the suggestion that office bearers of his union are nominated by the I.D. No. 80/04 Page 17 of 20 management and are not elected by members. He has denied the suggestion that their union has been provided a union room by the management.
14. I have heard arguments from Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, Ld. AR for workmen and part arguments from Sh. B.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel/AR for the management. I have carefully gone through record of the case. My findings on the issues are as under :-
15. Findings on issue no. 1 Issue no 1 is "whether the dispute raised by the claimants/union is without locus standi? OPM". The preliminary objection of the management is that the alleged union has no locus standi to represent the case of the claimants and that the present case of the statement of claim has been signed by Mr. Balram Singh Dahiya, the Vice-President of the alleged union, who is not competent to sign and verify the statement of claim on behalf of the claimants as there is no authorization behalf of the claimants in the favour of of the signatory of the statement of claim to do so.
16. It is worth noting that as per terms of reference, the dispute is between union and the management and the claim has been signed by Vice-President of Union. Hence, claim is not without locus standi. This I.D. No. 80/04 Page 18 of 20 issue is decided accordingly.
17. Findings on issue no 2.
Issue no 2 is 'In terms of reference". Terms of reference is ''whether the action of the management in not allowing the union to put up its notice board at its original place in premises of PTI and not allowing the union to hold its meetings in the union room is legal and justified and if not what directions are necessary in this respect ?".
18. The preliminary objection of the management is that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as the same is neither covered under Section 2A nor covered under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act .
19. Industrial Tribunal gets jurisdiction to decide/answer terms of reference, if the dispute is an industrial dispute, claimant/claimants is/are workman/workmen and the management is an industry. In the present case there is question mark about the dispute being industrial dispute. The term "industrial dispute" is defined in Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act. The said section is reproduced as below :-
"industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person ;
20. It is case of claimants/union that the Press Trust of India I.D. No. 80/04 Page 19 of 20 Employees' Union, Delhi is union registered with the Registrar of Trade Union, Delhi under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 vide registration no. 223 of 1951. Section 13 of Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides as under :-
Incorporation of registered Trade Unions - Every registered Trade Union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold both movable and immovable property and to contract, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
21. In view of Section 13 of Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Registered Trade Union has an entity separate legal entity. It has entity separate from its members. Thus, dispute between the management and Registered Trade Union is not a dispute between employer and workmen, even if employees/workmen may be members of the said Registered Trade Union. Moreover, the present dispute is not connected with employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour. Hence, it is concluded that dispute mentioned in terms of reference is not an industrial dispute. Thus, the same cannot be answered. Issue No. 2 is disposed of accordingly.
22. Copy of the award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on 27.04.2012 (MAHAVIR SINGHAL)
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D. No. 80/04 Page 20 of 20