Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the year 1979, a question arose as to which union should be recognised as the authorised bargaining agent for the Khetri Copper Complex. At that time, besides the Union, there were two more unions in Khetri Copper Complex of the workmen employed there, namely Khetri Copper Mazdoor Sangh affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and Khetri Copper Workers Union affiliated to CITU, who claimed recognition. The question was decided by poll through secret ballot and the result went in favour of Khetri Copper Mazdoor Sangh (Representative Union). But, the procedure of secret ballot was not followed in the industry and without adopting the method of verifying the majority membership, in an arbitrary manner and surreptitiously recognition was given to the branch of respondent No. 4 on September 3, 1979, for a period of two years in spite of strong objection of the representative union. That recognition was valid only for a period of two years and came to an end on September 2, 1981. The case of the representative union is that though the period of two years, as aforesaid, has come to an end, but still the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. did not proceed to initiate any process for giving recognition for collective bargaining on behalf of the workmen in the industry. The representative union moved the Registrar of Trade Unions for recognition of the petitioner union to be the representative union of workmen for the industry. The Registrar of Trade Unions after examining the matter issued a certificate No. RRU/82 on January 7, 1982, under Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by Indian Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958. After the aforesaid recognition of the petitioner as representative union, the management should have recognised it as the authorised bargaining agent on behalf of the workmen of the industry, but out of ill-will towards the representative union, it did not give recognition to it as the authorised bargaining agent. The representative union approached the Chief Labour Commissioner (C), who started the process of verification of membership under the Code of Discipline. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) is said to have found that the representative union is the majority union. Thereafter, a report is said to have been sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) to the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) verifying that it has majority of the workers or its member and declaring the petitioner union as deserving recognition, but the grant of recognition was delayed and then letters were addressed by the Secretary, INTUC as well as by the President, INTUC. According to the petitioner, the procedure laid down in the Code of Discipline provides for maximum two chances for submission of information and records by the rival claimant unions for recognition to the authorities, the Union having failed to submit the requisite information and records, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) having made his recommendation, the Chief Labour Commissioner (2) ought to have issued directions in favour of the petitioner, union, but violating the procedure laid down in the Code of Discipline, the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) appears to have directed for giving a third opportunity of the union for submission of records and information. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) visited the industry on October 20, 1983, without giving any notice to the representative union, obtained the list of membership from the union on the spot and immediately asked for the objection of the representative union then and there. According to the representative union, though the method adopted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) was not fair and the petitioner objected to it, but at the instances of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), the petitioner union jotted down the objection as could be done on the spot and in the hot-haste in which the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) wanted those to be submitted. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) on the contrary gave time to the union to submit their objection on the next day. Thus, according to the representative union the method adopted for verification by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not fair and the request thereafter was made for personal verification of the membership of the two unions, the representative union and the union, but no action was taken and under Annexure 26, dated July 9, 1984, the recognition has been granted to the union (respondent No. 4) as bargaining agent on behalf of the workmen employed in the industry for a period of two years commencing from July 9, 1984, subject to registration of respondent No. 4 remaining valid and subject to its continued observance of the Code of Discipline in industry.

9. The Code of Discipline is said to provide the procedure for verification of the respective strength of the unions where there are more than one union in a unit or industrial establishment. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) according to the representative union verified the strength of the membership of the union and representative union and thereafter is said to have made report to the Chief Labour Commissioner (C). The grievance of the representative union is that as per the provisions of the Code of Discipline only two opportunities should have been given to the representative unions to file their list of membership and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner (C) should have made his report. But the third opportunity was given to the union and thereafter the report was made by the Assistant Commissioner (C) to the Chief Labour Commissioner (C). The question as to whether on a verification under the provisions of the Code of Discipline a union was found to be having the majority of members is a disputed question of fact and cannot be gone into in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. That apart, even under Clause (ix) of para 4 of the Code of Discipline as reproduced in para 47 of the writ petition, if in any State, statutory provisions for according recognition to the trade unions exist, the same will continue to apply for the purposes of recognition. The case of the repressntative union is that it being a registered union under Section 9-E of the ID Act by the Registrar, no proceedings could be taken under the procedure of the Code of Discipline enumerated above. In an earlier part of this judgment, it has already been said that so far as the registration of the union under Chapter II-B of the ID Act is concerned, it only confers a right on the representative union to enter into written agreement to refer present or future dispute to arbitrator or whether name or not. No exclusive right is conferred on the representative union to be recognised as the sole authorised bargaining agent for collective bargaining on behalf of the workmen which it represents. On verification the Assist. Labour Commissioner (C) is said to have found that the union had the majority of the workmen as its members. This was on verification of the membership strength of the unions operating in the industry, by the Central Industrial machinery. The representative union claims that if there would have been cent-percent verification, it would have been found that it has the majority of the workers as its members. The Code of Discipline does not confer any statutory right. As already stated earlier, as the ID Act and the Act stand, there is no provision under which any union can claim an exclusive right of recognition as a sole bargaining agent. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in its writ jurisdiction cannot quash Annexure 26 dated July 9, 1984, and cannot accord recognition to the representative union having the exclusive right to be the bargaining agent for the workmen of the industry.