Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The grievance of the petitioner-Union is that, from day one, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Discipline is given a goby by Mr.A.K. Patel, Deputy Labour Commissioner. The main grievance of the petitioner-Union is that on 16th May, 2002, the Union was compelled to produce its record, even though the stipulated time of 10 days was not over. It is also the grievance of the petitioner-Union that even though the original applicant Union as well as respondent No.4-Union had not cooperated in the proceedings, yet, their claim was allowed to be processed and was taken into consideration. They have also challenged the procedure adopted by the Officer for personal verification by way of in camera procedure. It is also the grievance of the petitioner-Union that, on the relevant day, during the Mithapur Camp, record of other Unions were not verified and, subsequently, their record was verified at Ahmedabad. The petitioner, accordingly, even wrote a letter to the Management, requesting it not to give recognition to respondent No.4-Union, as they would like to challenge the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour by way of appropriate proceedings in the court of law. The in camera procedure adopted by the Officer is also challenged on the ground that there is no in camera procedure in the Code of Discipline to call each and every workman for personal interrogation and only sample checking was required to be done. According to the petitioner-Union, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has violated the Code of Discipline in toto and from the beginning, the entire Code of Discipline is given a goby and under the circumstances, it is prayed that the decision of respondent No.1, in recommending respondent No.4-Union for giving recognition, should be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to undertake de novo proceedings for verification of the membership of the respective Unions.

... ... ...."

It is, thus, clear that as per the Code of Discipline, it is required to be verified whether a member has paid subscription for at least 3 months during the period of six months immediately preceding the date of reckoning.

16. It is required to be noted that, in the past also, verification process was initiated by an Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Some petitions were filed on behalf of the Unions. One of the petitions was filed by the present petitioner-Union itself and another petition was filed by respondent No.4-Union, and, as narrated earlier, those petitions were disposed of by this Court, with necessary directions. It was found, at that time, that the petitioner-Union was not given reasonable opportunity to put forward its claim and, in fact, it was found that without taking into account its say and without giving the petitioner-Union adequate opportunity to produce the record, the decision was arrived at by the said Assistant Labour Commissioner. Under the circumstances, the Court directed to initiate fresh proceedings for verification of the membership within the stipulated time. In the instant case, the earlier Officer, viz., Mr.M.V. Jadeja, initiated the proceedings, but when the petitioner-Union made grievance, he requested the State Government to appoint some other Officer. Under these circumstances, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Mr.Patel and two other Officers have undertaken the work of verifying the membership of the concerned Unions of employees of the respondent No.7-Company. It is not in dispute that when Mr.Jadeja initiated the enquiry, certain documents were already produced by respondent No.4-Union and since the petitioner was not willing to cooperate with the said enquiry, no record was produced by the petitioner before said Mr.Jadeja and, subsequently, the enquiry was continued by Mr.A.K. Patel. However, Mr.Patel, after taking charge of the proceedings, intimated the petitioner-Union to produce necessary documents. It is submitted by Mr.Clerk that respondent No.4 had not produced its record immediately before Mr.A.K. Patel. However, it is required to be noted that Mr.Jadeja had conducted the enquiry. In fact, it cannot be said that it is a de novo proceedings. In furtherance of the said enquiry, Mr.A.K. Patel, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who was in charge of the enquiry at the relevant time, in fact, granted sufficient time to the petitioner for producing the documents in question. Considering the letter of Mr.A.K. Patel at Annexure 'J', dated 29.4.2002, it is clear that, in continuation of the earlier enquiry initiated by Mr.Jadeja, the petitioner was asked to produce the record, as, admittedly, the petitioner had not produced any document at the relevant time when Mr.Jadeja initiated the enquiry. When the respondent No.4-Union had already produced documents when Mr.Jadeja initiated the proceedings, it was not necessary for respondent No.4 again to produce the documents, especially when whatever proceedings initiated by Mr.Jadeja upto that date cannot be said to have been wiped out totally. Since the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence before Mr.Jadeja, naturally, Mr.A.K. Patel, who continued the enquiry, gave opportunity to the petitioner-Union to produce necessary documents. In my view, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner. It is required to be noted that, as a matter of fact, the Officer was fair to all the concerned Unions. As and when any prayer for time was made, the same was granted from time to time. It is required to be noted that the concerned record is required to be checked with the muster roll maintained by the Company. The provisions in the Code of Discipline itself suggest that the records of the Union is to be counter checked with the muster roll of the Company. Under the circumstances, even if respondent No.4 had demanded, at a later point of time, to give copies of the Muster Roll and if the same is provided, it cannot be said that the said action on the part of respondent No.1 is contrary to the Code of Discipline. Mr.Clerk, however, submitted that when the petitioner-Union submitted its objections there and then, the respondent No.4 Union also should have done the same thing; instead, it was granted time by providing copy of the muster roll. It is, however, required to be noted that respondent No.1 intimated other Unions also that since respondent No.4 has been given copy of the muster roll, they are also entitled to such copy and in fact, copies were also given to such Unions. In any case, there is nothing on record which suggests that the process must be completed then and there only and that the proceedings cannot be adjourned by respondent No.1. The procedure followed by respondent No.1 is in consonance with the Code of Discipline as the record of the Unions must tally with the muster roll of the Company.

21. It is required to be noted that even otherwise, a deviation from the Code of Discipline here or there itself may not result in setting at naught the entire verification process. Assuming that there is some deviation, then also, it is required to be seen whether more or less the Code of Discipline is followed by respondent No.1 and whether by such deviation, any prejudice is caused to either side. In the instant case, respondent No.1 has undertaken enquiry in consonance with the Code of Discipline itself and, as such, it cannot be said that he has given a complete goby to the Code of Discipline. Code of Discipline is not a statute, where one is required to go exactly word by word. It is enough even if more or less, the Code of Discipline is substantially followed by the Officer concerned.

" ... ... ...
11. The code of discipline is accepted by all the Employers and Workers organisations at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held at Nainital in May 1958. No doubt, the code of discipline has no statutory force. But, this code of discipline has to be observed, applied and followed both by the employer and the employees in order to have industrial peace.
12. The first respondent - Commissioner having appointed the returning officer with a direction to hold referendum confining only to six recognised unions and pursuant to that the returning officer having issued the calender of events fixing the date of election should not have interfered in the process of election by issuing a direction to the returning officer not to proceed with the election. Further, even assuming that there are defects in the calender of events issued by the returning officer and if there is any such representation alleging any defect, the Commissioner ought to have issued notice to six unions in respect of which the referendum has been confined by an earlier order, before directing the Returning Officer not to proceed with the election.