Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.23 seconds)

Secretary, Meters Staff Association vs United Electrical Industries Ltd. on 23 August, 1984

The decisions of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Southern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Southern Railway 1970-1 LLJ 83 of a Division Bench of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in North-East Frontier Mazdoor Union v. The General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway 1970-11 LLJ 486 and of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.C Mukherjee v. Union of India 1976 C.W.N. 208 were relied on. The decision of the Madras High Court did not relate to this question. this Court declined to follow the view taken by the Assam and Nagaland High Court but preferred to follow the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. this Court pointed out that there was no statutory rule or agreement between the management and the union that the recognition once granted will not be withdrawn without giving an opportunity to the union to be heard. Even if there is an agreement unless it could be construed as part of the conditions of service, writ jurisdiction may not be invoked. In such circumstances, according to this decision, the union cannot insist that it should be heard before recognition has been withdrawn. It was also pointed out that what the management did was only to lay down a policy as to how industrial peace could be achieved, which unions should be considered as representative of particular categories of employees and which unions should be allowed to resort to collective bargaining on behalf of the said workers. It was also stressed that the arrangement under the impugned order was only for three years and it was quite possible that after three years if circumstances change and representation of the workers in particular unions also change, the board might change the decision and recognise some other unions which are then found to be more representative of the categories of workers and in that re-arrangement, this union might also be recognised for the particular type of workers it represents. In this view, the claim of the union was negatived.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1