Madras High Court
Madras Port Trust Employees' Union vs M/S. Chennai Container Terminal ... on 7 August, 2025
W.P. No.35729 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P. No.35729 of 2023
and W.M.P. No.35710 of 2023
Madras Port Trust Employees' Union,
Registration No.199,
represented by its General Secretary
Mr. G. M. Krishnamurthy,
S.C.C. Anthony Pillai Bhavan,
No.34 (Old No.9), 2nd Line Beach,
Chennai-600 001. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s. Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited,
represented by its General Manager,
Human Resources, Chennai Port Trust,
Administrative Building, Ground Floor,
No.1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C),
Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C),
No.226, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C),
No.226, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.
4. M/s. Chennai Container Terminal Employees Union,
No.39, 7th Street, V.O.C. Nagar, Tondiarpet,
Chennai - 600 081.
5. M/s. Chennai Port Container Terminal Employees'
Welfare Union,
No.13, Sivagami Street, Lakshmi Amman Nagar,
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am )
W.P. No.35729 of 2023
Chennai-600 118. ..... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
consider the representation dated 24.07.2023 sent to them and consequently
determine the relative strength of the trade unions functioning in the 1st
respondent by implementing the check off system and deducting the
subscription of the members of the Writ petitioner and the members of the 4th
and 5th respondents from their salaries under the overall supervision of the
2nd respondent or by secret ballot and consequently recognize the petitioner
as a recognized union in the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr R. Sunilkumar
For Respondents : Mr. S. Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for M/s. S. Bazeer Ahamed [for R1]
Mr. A. Poorna Chandran
Central Government Standing
Counsel [for R2 & R3].
Ms. A. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan
[for R4]
Mr. P. Arun Kumar [for R5]
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 24.07.2023 and consequently determine the relative strength of the trade unions functioning in the 1st respondent by implementing the check off system and deducting the subscription of the 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 members of the Writ petitioner and the members of the 4th and 5th respondents from their salaries under the overall supervision of the 2nd respondent or by secret ballot and consequently recognize the petitioner as a recognized union in the 1st respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered trade Union under the Trade Unions Act and the 2nd largest trade union in the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was the first private container terminal established at the Chennai Port Trust in the year 2001 and is managed under a 30 year Build Operate Transfer Agreement entered with the Chennai Port Trust. The 4th respondent is a registered trade union functioning in the 1st respondent having a membership strength of 61 employees. The 5th respondent is a registered trade union functioning in the 1st respondent having a membership strength of 23 employees. The Writ petitioner was not recognized by the 1st respondent and also they sent a letter dated 02.11.2021 requesting the Management to allow one of its representatives to participate in the negotiation Committee to have an amicable settlement. By a letter dated 15.12.2021, the petitioner called upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit a representative of the petitioner to participate in the negotiations concerning the impending settlement and to issue proper guidelines for recognition of trade unions and permit the check off system for the members of the petitioner as the same had been extended to 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 other unions. The 2nd respondent forwarded that letter to the 1st respondent calling upon them to offer their comments and the 1st respondent replied stating that there were two recognized unions in the 1st respondent, the Chennai Container Terminal Employees Union and the Chennai Port Container Terminal Employees Welfare Union i.e., the 4th and 5th respondents herein with whom the earlier settlement was entered into which expired in April 2020 and that the petitioner was neither recognized by the 1st respondent nor submits its charter of demands.
2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its charter of demands for revision of existing wages and other service conditions for the permanent employees working as RS/RTG and Quay Crane Operators with effect from 01.05.2020. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioner had no legitimate right to participate in the ongoing negotiations and also raised an industrial dispute to commence the conciliation proceedings. On 04.08.2022, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner and the 1st respondent that he intended to hold conciliation proceedings on 01.09.2022 and on 10.08.2022, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, but on the same day, the 1st respondent concluded the settlement with 4th and 5th respondents under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act without hearing the representatives of the petitioner. On 01.09.2022, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent to implement the check off system and in the 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 meantime, the 1st respondent also appointed a 3rd part consultant as an Enquiry Officer to preside and conduct a quasi judicial enquiry for departmental proceedings it proposed to initiate against one Govindan. However the 1st respondent informed the 2nd respondent that already concluded the settlement with the recognized unions on 10.08.2022.
2.2. Thereafter, on 14.09.2022, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner and the 1st respondent that he intended to hold conciliation proceedings on 26.09.2022. On 26.09.2022, the 1st respondent replied to the 3rd respondent stating that they had only 2 recognized unions being the 4th and 5th respondents and that they were under no obligation to recognize the petitioner as it was their prerogative which is contrary to law and the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was already signed with the 4th and the 5th respondents and that there was no necessity for signing the settlement with the petitioner and there was no bar to an outsider being an Enquiry Officer and requested to drop all the proceedings on the issues raised.
2.3. No provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibits the management from negotiating or discussing terms of the settlement with an unrecognised union. Even a minority union should be offered with an opportunity of ventilating individual grievance of its members. Therefore, the 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2023 has to be considered, thereby, the Writ petitioner has filed this Writ petition.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent is having a Container Terminal at Chennai Port and the same is involving loading, unloading of cargo in containers in the ships berthed in the port. The workmen of the 1st respondent were the members of the 4th and 5th respondents for the past many years. The 1st respondent has entered into a long term settlement with the said unions from the year 2007 onwards. So far five settlements have been entered with the 4th respondent and 3 settlements with the 5th respondent providing for best service conditions and higher wages for the employees. Though the petitioner union claiming to represent certain workmen of the 1st respondent wanted to have settlement with the 1st respondent on industrial relations matter, the 1st respondent could not accept the said request as it was having peaceful industrial relations in the establishment wherein 4th and 5th respondents take effective measures to redress the grievance of the workmen at large. At present, the average monthly wage of the workmen is around Rs.72,240/-. The 4th and 5th respondents who were the signatories of the settlement dated 10.08.2022 are still enjoying the benefits of the said settlement which expires on 30.04.2024. Both the 4th and 5th respondents have submitted their charter of demands for the year 2024 - 2027 to the 1st respondent Management and 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 the settlements were entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also did not challenge the terms of the settlement dated 10.08.2022 on the ground that the settlement was not fair. In fact, all the workmen including the members of the petitioner Union have accepted the terms of the said settlement. Before the expiry of the settlement dated 10.08.2022, the petitioner union filed the present Writ petition on the strength of the representation dated 24.07.2023 and the said representation dated 24.08.2023 would not give any cause of action to file this petition.
3.1. The Writ of Mandamus for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider its representation dated 24.07.2023 and consequently determine the relative strength of the trade unions by implementing check off system is not maintainable as check off system is not a legal right available to the petitioner to be enforced by filling a Writ petition. The 2nd prayer that a direction should be issued to the 1st respondent to deduct subscription from the salary of the employees of the petitioner union is also equally not maintainable in the Writ proceedings. There cannot be over all supervision by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner's prayer to conduct secret ballet in the 1st respondent establishment to determine the membership of the trade union is also not maintainable. The prayer in respect of recognising the petitioner trade union by the 1st respondent is also unsustainable in its jurisdiction and no Writ of 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 Mandamus to lie against the 1st respondent in respect of various prayers made by the petitioner. The various allegations with regard to the settlement dated 10.08.2022 are meritless and the same was not challenged by the petitioner union. In fact, they accepted the settlement. The allegations that the 1st respondent committed unfair labour practice is baseless. The reference to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is untenable. Moreover, on 17.03.2025, a Memorandum of Settlement was signed before the 3rd respondent between the 1st respondent and 4th and 5th respondents under Section 12(3) / 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The benefit of settlement is applicable to all the workmen and the same has to be received by all the workmen. In the above said settlement, all the workmen have received average increase in wages at Rs.6,069 per month. At present, the average monthly wage of workmen is Rs.76,715/-. The conciliation proceedings have also been concluded after the signing of the settlement dated 17.03.2025. Therefore, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent Union is a duly registered trade union and it has been representing the majority workers of Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited since then. The members of the 4th respondent union are working as Quay Crane Operators, Rubber Tyre Gantry Operators and Reach Stackers / 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 Empty Container Handler Operations. By virtue of its membership strength and the fact that it represents all sections of the workers of the 1st respondent establishment, the 4th respondent union ought to be treated as the sole bargaining agent of the workers of Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited. The 4th respondent union had entered into 5 settlements with the management of the 1st respondent company under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement between the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent Union was signed on 10.08.2022. There is no necessity for conducting any exercise to determine the relatives strength of trade union functioning in the 1st respondent establishment and that the petitioner Union has no right to demand that such an exercise be conducted. The prayer in respect of implementation of check off system in respect of the members of the 4th respondent has not right to claim recognition by the 1st respondent Management. Therefore, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also reiterated the arguments of the 4th respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023
7. In this case, it is an admitted fact that already two Unions are representing on behalf of the workers and they entered into settlement with the 1st respondent Management from the year 2007 onwards. Now the petitioner wants to participate in the negotiations with the Management along with 4 and 5 respondents and therefore, filed this Writ petition. The petitioner Management sent a representation to the Authorities and therefore, conciliation proceedings were initiated in respect of the settlements already entered by Union with the 1st respondent and also the petitioner demanded to recognize the petitioner Union as one of the Unions to negotiate with the 1st respondent in respect of the demands. Since already two recognized Unions are available to redress the grievance of the workmen and the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim right to recognize the Trade Union. Moreover, a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus will not lie against the 1st respondent as the recognition of Union is not a statutory right.
8. It is also an admitted fact that already settlements were entered between the 1st respondent and the respondents 4 and 5 and through the settlement, the Members of the Petitioner Union also benefited and they have not challenged the settlement entered by the 1st respondent and the respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, the petitioner as a matter of right, cannot seek prayer to recognize the petitioner Union.
10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023
9. As far as the other prayers are concerned, the petitioner sought for a direction to consider the representation dated 24.07.2023 of the 1 to 3 respondents and to determine the relative strength of the Trade Unions functioning in the 1st respondent by implementing the check off system is concerned, it is for the Management to decide in respect of the recognition and this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to determine the relative strength of the trade Union functioning in the 1st respondent by implementing the check off system and also this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to deduct subscription of the members of the Trade Union from their salaries under the overall supervision of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the prayers sought for by the Writ petitioner have no merits and deserve to be dismissed.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Automobile Products of India Employees' Union vs. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 444.
(ii) International Airports Authority of India Workers' Union vs. International Airports Authority of India and others reported in 1993 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 229.
11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023
(iii) Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India and others reported in 1995 Supp.(1) Supreme Court Cases 678.
(iv) MRF United Workers Union represented by its Secretary, Arakkonam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2009 SCC Online Mad 2876.
On a careful perusal of the above said judgments, they will not be applicable to the present facts of the case, because in the case on hand, the facts are different.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied upon a judgments of this Court in
(i) W.A. Nos.768, 771 of 2017 in Chief Executive, Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., and others vs. Commissioner of Labour cum Registrar of Trade Unions and others, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Para No.27 held as follows:-
"27. In the case on hand, the factual aspect as pleaded and narrated above, we find no material to infer check off system has lost its appeal. Except the 2nd respondent Union none other Union has sought for secret ballot. The verification method followed by the Society is in accordance to regulation and code of discipline and had been in vogue for decades. While so, without any strong reason to deviate from the settled procedure, just for the wish of the Writ petitioners, Court cannot substitute a procedure not specifically contemplated in law. Further, the claim of the new Union that it commands majority members could be very well proved through 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 verification method itself and it is not necessary to undergo the exercise of secret ballot just for asking. It appears till date the new Union has not attempted to prove its membership by furnishing the applications of its members".
(ii) Shanmugam General Secretary, Labour Progressive Federation, having office at No.10/25, Thyegaraya Street, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others reported in 2025-1-L.W. 836, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Para No.26, held as follows:-
"26. On analysis of all the judgments, we find that a new problem stems from each and every solution that has been suggested. We find that the following proposals will by and large avoid exclusion of any set of workers from the negotiating table which is the ultimate object to ensure collective bargaining.
1. If any one Trade Union is able to show that it has the support of more than 50% of the workers then it will be that Union which will be the sole representative of the work force.
2. If no Union has more than 50% support then all the Unions which have the support of more than 20% of the work force will form a negotiating council.
3. A Union having support of 20% of the work force will have the right to nominate one representative for every 20% of votes it has.
4. For example, a Union having 40% of the work force on it rolls as members will be able to send two representatives. Union which has got 20% will have the right to send one representative, the fractions of 20% will not be taken into account".
12. On a careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear that without any strong reason to deviate from the settled procedure, just for the wish of the Writ petitioners, Court cannot substitute a procedure not specifically contemplated in law. Further, the claim of the new Union that it 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023 commands majority members could be very well proved through verification method itself and it is not necessary to undergo the exercise of secret ballot just for asking and any one Trade Union is able to show that it has the support of more than 50% of the workers then it will be that Union which will be the sole representative of the work force. If no Union has more than 50% support then all the Unions which have the support of more than 20% of the work force will form a negotiating council. A Union having support of 20% of the work force will have the right to nominate one representative for every 20% of votes it has.
13. In the case on hand also, it is admitted by the petitioner Union itself that the 4th respondent has majority of more than 50% of the workers and therefore, the said Union has right to represent on behalf of the workmen and already the Union has been recognized by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner Union cannot claim as a matter of right to recognize and to conduct verification to determine the relative strength of the trade Unions functioning in the 1st respondent.
14. Therefore, as discussed supra, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relieves as prayed for in the Writ petition and the Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023
15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order mjs P.DHANABAL, J., mjs To
1. M/s. Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited, represented by its General Manager, Human Resources, Chennai Port Trust, Administrative Building, Ground Floor, No.1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), No.226, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), No.226, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.
4. M/s. Chennai Container Terminal Employees Union, No.39, 7th Street, V.O.C. Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081.
15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am ) W.P. No.35729 of 2023
5. M/s. Chennai Port Container Terminal Employees' Welfare Union, No.13, Sivagami Street, Lakshmi Amman Nagar, Chennai-600 118.
W.P. No.35729 of 2023
07.08.2025 16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 10:55:41 am )