Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It is true that in the Code of Discipline there is a provision for recognition of Union. The verification of membership of the first petitioner- Union could have relevance only for the purpose of obtaining recognition for the first petitioner Union. But here we are asked to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents nos.1 and 2 directing them to verify the membership of the first petitioner Union. Legitimately, we are obliged to find out as to whether any legal obligation or duty is cast upon the respondents nos.1 and 2 in this behalf. Mandamus is a command by this Court for enforcement of such legal obligation or duty. Shri T.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the verification should be done by respondents nos.1 and 2 so as to settle the question of recognition and that would enable the first petitioner Union to assume the representative character to advance the cause of the workmen."

15. In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra), the Division Bench of Madras High Court pointed out :

"Admittedly, there is no statutory provision in this case dealing with the question of recognition or derecognition. Equally admittedly the Code of Discipline in Industry is not statutory. Notwithstanding this, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Code of Discipline in Industry does contemplate recognition and that it was only under that Code, recognition was applied for and granted. It is not disputed that the grant of recognition confers a status on a body like the respondent union to represent the workers in a particular category, with reference to their service conditions, with the management; in other words, it becomes a bargaining agent on behalf of the group of workers with reference to which it was recognised. Withdrawal of that statute or recognition will certainly bring about adverse consequences on a body like the respondent- union, and with reference to such adverse consequences, even an order of withdrawal like the one made by the appellant if it is illegal or is in violation of principles of natural justice. Certainly a body like the respondent- union can approach this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India."

15. It seems that the question raised was not to grant recognition to 5th respondent union. The Bombay High Court pointed out that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not only lies against an authority that falls within the definition of "State" in Article 12, but also against a statutory corporation to enforce the performance of a statutory or public duty. As the Code of Discipline or the "consensus" referred, do not cast any statutory or public duty on the employer which is a statutory corporation, no petition under Article 226 would lie on the ground that the Code or consensus have been violated by the employer. The Court further pointed out that :

16. Mr. Vasavda, learned advocate could not point out from the Act any provision casting duty on the employer to recognise a particular union or duty of the Labour Commissioner to hold election. FIFTH Schedule of the Act, no doubt refers to recognised union. However, in the Act there is no provision for recognising a union unlike Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("BIR Act" for brevity). When the Act is silent and makes no specific provision conferring any special rights upon recognised union and at the same time when no duty is cast upon the employer to recognise a union having particular qualifications as recognised union, it can be said that one has to go by the Code of Conduct with a view to maintain discipline. If in one establishment, a union is operating with majority representation of the workmen and in another establishment when four unions are operating, it is difficult for us to say that the order passed by the leaned Single Judge is erroneous. Nor can it be said to be not in accordance with law considering the scheme of the Act. It is also required to be noted that the present cases are not governed by the BIR Act. This Act operates only in specified areas and with respect to specified industries in the State of Gujarat. Chapter III deals with registration of union and its rights. Sec. 26A of the said Act provides that no employee shall be allowed to appear or act in any proceeding under this Act, except through a representative of the employees union. Thus, powers are conferred upon the union to act as a bargaining agent under the BIR Act. Even BIR Act is silent about recognition to majority. Reading the provisions under the Act it is clear that no duty is cast upon the employer to hold elections to find out a union having majority. Therefore, the Appeals are required to be dismissed.