Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. After observing so, the learned judge has also extracted the criteia for recognition of unions under the code of discipline. It is appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder for better understanding of the law governing the matter relating to recognision of Trade Union in the State of Tamil Nadu.
31.The question of granting of recognition of the trade union in the State of Tamil Nadu is not based upon any statutory right and that it has already been noted by a division bench of this court in K.V.Sridharan's case (cited supra). Ever since the Code of Discipline adopted in the tripartite labour conference was utilized. Since in the absence of any law in the trade union recognition and any recognition granted by any employer is only based upon the code of discipline evolved in a tripartite labour conference. The said code in relation to the criteria for recognition of the union may be reproduced as follows:
7.In the case of trade union federations which are not affiliated to any of the four central organization of labour the question of recognition would have to be dealt with separately.
8.Only unions which observed the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition.
20. In MRF United Workers Union Rep. By its Secretary, Arakkonam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another' case (cited supra) , the division bench of this court after discussing Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporationof India and others case (cited supra) and Automobile Products of India Employees Union -vs- Association of Engineering Workers Bombay (AIR 1999 SC 625) has held that, 37. Having noted this scenario and considering that there is continuous strife in the company, in our view, the Court cannot simply remain a silent spectator. We are aware that the Court has its own limitations while exercising jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ or direction. On analyzing the provisions of Article 19(1)(c), it recognizes the right to form association and also the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act that there should be recognized union and when there is a inclination of the State Government to accept a particular procedure, which is otherwise also accepted in different statutes throughout the country, in our view, the correct course will be to give a direction to the Commissioner of Labour to call upon the two unions to submit their membership details as per the Code of Discipline and examine their membership as provided under the Code over a period. In the event, there are any objections, the objections could be verified in the light of clause-7 of the Code of Discipline by personal interrogatories so as to arrive at the correct membership of either of the two trade unions. Alternative to this procedure namely, ballot system, which, although is recommended by the Committee of the ILO, is not accepted in any of the statutes which have been brought to our notice. The recommendations of the Committee can only be respected to this effect that there has to be a collective bargaining agent of the workmen, which is to be a truly and independent representative agent. As far as the methods suggested by the Committee is concerned, it would result into determination on the basis of the facts arrived at a particular point of time, which has not been very much appreciated as a proper method. The method of verification on the other hand will show the following of a particular union over a longer period and would definitely be a better option. The other alternative approach is to say that none of the methods is recognized and therefore the choice of the management will prevail. That certainly cannot be permitted in view of the provisions of the fifth schedule of the Act. The Code of Conduct has a force of acceptance of the organizations of the workers and of the Management and also of the Government, and is being followed in different undertakings. Further, it is also in tune with the provisions of the different statutes in different States.
21. Later, in Foxconn case (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court has distinguished the MRF case on facts and given reason for the same as under:-
34.The observation of the Division Bench in MRF United Workers Union was on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Automobile Products of India Employees' Union v. Assn. Of Engineering Works (1990 (S) SCC 444)
35.In Automobile Products of India Employees' Union the issue before the Supreme Court was relating to the validity of the procedure adopted by the Industrial Court for granting recognition dehors the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Act contains a specified procedure for conducting verification of membership. Election by secret ballot was not a procedure recognized by law. It was only under such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that Court cannot allow the parties to circumvent the provisions of the Act. Also further observed that, 37.The Code of Discipline has indicated a procedure to verify the membership of the Union. That does not mean that the said procedure should be followed in its letter and spirit in spite of proving that the method has lost its appeal.(emphasis added)
(ii)In case however, there is a demand for change in the method of verification (i.e., from Check Off to Secret Ballot System and vice versa), this can be adopted only if consent of all the parties is available.
(iii)Consultations should continue so that a wider consensus is achieved through the ILC forum Amendments in the Code of Discipline will also be deliberated upon and decided in that Forum.

24. On cummulative reading of the law and regulation of the Soceity governing the issue in the light of the various judgments rendered on this point, we find that in Shanmugam case, when the recognised union sought for a negative mandamus not to invite any other union for negotitation during the period of its recognition, learned single judge of this court taking note of the judgments rendered in FCI case, Air Inda Employees Union case and MRF case has reinforced the principle that when secret ballot is not part of any statutory requirement under law, verification method ( check off system) contemplated in Code of Discipline will prevail, ie verification method has to be followed while granting recognition.