Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Automobile Products Of India Employees ... vs Association Of Engineering Workers, ... on 27 March, 1990
5. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Automobile Products of India Employees Union v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and Ors. to contend that the procedure prescribed for determination of majority has to be followed in pith and substance and exclusive membership of the contesting unions continuously over the specified period has to be the basis, while overlapping membership being ignored. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the Industrial Court had directed secret ballot method for determining the majority with the consent of the parties. The Court held that despite consent of the parties, this method, being opposed to the specific provisions of the Act, could not be accepted and the illegality was incurable. Of course, the overlapping membership was also stated to be impermissible. These established principles of law hardly need any discussion in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Industrial Court satisfied itself that respondent No. 1 Union was able to prove its majority during the relevant time. It recorded a finding also to the effect that all the relevant records had been maintained by the Union. The findings are primarily based upon appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor illogical. This Court would not interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal merely because another view would be possible on the same facts and evidence. No legal infirmity has been brought to our notice in following the prescribed procedure. Nothing has been brought on record to show that members with common membership were considered by the Tribunal as members of a particular Union. The persons who had given resignations from the Petitioner Union have filed affidavits to show their solidarity to respondent No. 1 Union and their participation. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the procedure for determination of majority has tilted the balance in favour of either party prejudicially".
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 14 in The Trade Unions Act, 1926 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar ... vs Kamgar Suraksha Sangh And Anr. on 11 October, 2007
4. At the very outset, we may notice that in the present writ petition, the challenge is primarily based upon appreciation of evidence. Unless and until the conclusions arrived at by the Industrial Court are so perverse that no person with common prudence could have arrived at the conclusion, the Court would not be inclined to interfere in such matters. We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Industrial Court is either perverse or based on no evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the members who are found to be common to both the Unions cannot be included and they essentially would have to be excluded from counting while determining the majority of either of the parties. It is nobody's case and, in fact, neither has been argued that the members with common membership were considered as members of a particular Union. A Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment dated 11th October, 2007, in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh v. Kamgar Suraksha Sangh Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1951 of 2007 held as under.
1