Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Without such a statute governing the mode of recognition, it is clear that the employee and the employer would be governed by the 'Code of Discipline. The said Code of Discipline permits the recognition of a union and also provides for method of ascertaining the membership. I shall now refer to the concept of 'Code of Discipline'.

14. In the report submitted in 1969 by the National Commission on Labour headed by Sri P. B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India, it is stated (Chapter 24 at p. 345, para 24., 17 etc.) that the Government of India shifted the emphasis in 1957 from legislation to 'voluntary arrangements' so far as labour laws, and rights and duties of labour, are concerned. In that context, the question of 'discipline' in industry was discussed in the Indian Labour Conference.

............
8. Only unions which observed the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition."

20. A question arose as to who were governed by the 'Code of Discipline'. The Government of India gave a clarification on August 1, 1981 that after referring the matter to the Ministry has clarified for the guidance of the Regional Rural Banks as follows :-

"(i) The Code of Discipline circulated with our letter No. F. 13-2/80 RRB dt. December 27, 1980 contemplates recognition of unions in relation to 'workers' only.
(ii) The recognised Union/Association is entitled to rights agreed to at the 20th Session of Indian Labour Conference listed in Annexure to this letter."

It is further stated that for an union to be recognised under the Code of Discipline, it is necessary that it should be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and have completed a period of one year after registration. The union should also agree to abide by the Code of Discipline and should not have committed any breach of the Code of Discipline within a period of one year before claiming recognition. To the said letter dated August 1, 1981 of the Government of India, is attached another Annexure containing the "Rights of unions recognised under the Code of Discipline" as agreed to at the 20th Session of the Indian Labour Conference held in August, 1962.

The learned Judge then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in B. L. Workers' Union, Bombay v. B. L. & Co. Ltd. above referred to. The Bombay High Court in M. S. R. T. Corporation v. M. M. Kamgar Federation, Nagpur 1986 Lab IC 253 has also stated :

"Impliedly the 'Code of Discipline' will lose its value wherever the Act is brought into force."

23. From the aforesaid rulings and Reports, the following position can be stated. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 as in force today does not deal with recognition as such. Though Parliament has passed the Trade Union (Amendment Act) 1947 for amending the 1926 Act, dealing with recognition of trade unions, the said Act has not been brought into force. The question of recognition is governed by the guidelines in the 'Code of Discipline' voluntarily accepted by the employer and employees and will hold good unless replaced by any statute like the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 or similar provisions in force in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. The Code of Discipline agreed to in the present case is applicable only to 'workers' simpliciter and not to those in managerial/supervisory capacities. In that view of the matter, it must be held on points 1 and 2 that the petitioner union is governed by the 'Code of Discipline' in the industry and the petitioner is not entitled to any higher rights of recognition than stated in the Code of Discipline. Inasmuch as the said Code applies only to "workers", no recognition can be granted for composite unions.