DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT: LABOUR LAW - I

PROJECT TTILE: A STUDY ON RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

NAME OF THE FACULTY: R. BHARAT KUMAR, M.A., LL.M.

SUBMITTED BY

ATUL LAL

2017117

5TH SEMESTER

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………5

NEED FOR RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION……………………………………….6

METHODS OF RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION…………………………………...7

CONDITIONS FOR RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION……………………………..8

PROBLEMS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT…………10

RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION UNDER CENTRAL ACT (TRADE UNION

ACT 1926)…………………………………………………………………………………...11

CODE OF DISCIPLENE AND TRADE UNION RECOGNITION…………………….12

STATES HAVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION ON RECOGNITION OF TRADE

UNION………………………………………………………………………………………13

PROCESS OF RECOGNITION IN THE MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF

TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT,
1971…………………………………………………………………………………………..14

CASE ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………..15

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...25

2|Page
 A STUDY ON RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

INTRODUCTION

Recognition of trade union and registration are not one and the same, they differ in nature.
Trade union registration is mandatory under “The Trade Union act, 1926”, but recognition of
trade union is not mandatory, it is process of conferring right to the trade union by the
management to represent the member employees as a sole bargaining agent during various
negotiations ether in to settlements on behalf of its members with the management and to
raise the members voice and opinion while formulating management policies and procedures
relating to their working conditions.

Freedom of association / formation of trade union is a fundamental right conferred under

article 19 (1) (c) of Constitution of India, 195o and it is statutory obligation on the part of
trade union to get it registered with registrar of trade unions. But, on the other hand, there is
no obligation on the part of management to recognize the trade union whether it is registered
or not. Though the trade union is in Union as well as Concurrent list, but there is no central
rule in India regarding recognition of trade union. However, states like Kerala, Andhra
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha have made it statutory to recognize the trade
union, in Tamil Nadu the government is yet to think of making a law towards recognition.
ILO during its 32nd convention at Geneva, vide its Convention Number 98 made it
mandatory for all its member countries to recognize the trade union but India is yet to ratify.
The parliament had once made an amendment in “Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 1947
introducing recognition of trade union but it was neither notified nor brought in to force. At
present, the only provision for recognition is contained section 36 of Industrial Dispute Act,
1946, where under “in any proceeding under the act, a workman who is party to an industrial
dispute is entitled to be represented by (a) any member of the executive or other office bearer
of a registered trade union of which he is a member, or (b) any member of the executive or
other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in
Clause (a) is affiliated; and (c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any
member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with”. The said
provision concerns only with representation in industrial disputes and it does not as such
provide for recognition of any trade union.

3|Page
DEFINITION OF RECOGNITION

A union must be recognised before it may effectively represent any employees. once a union
is recognised it serves as the bargaining agent for the workers in a particular bargaining unit.
An employee may not circumvent the union, because recognition entails willingness ‘to
negotiate with a view to striking a bargain and this involves a positive mental decision.

NEED FOR RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

Recognition of trade union is the backbone of collective bargaining. It has been debated time
and again. But inspite of the government stated policy to encourage trade unions, there is no
enforced central legislation on this subject. There are however voluntary code of discipline
and legislations in some states.

Definition of Collective bargaining as the ‘performance of the mutual obligation of the

employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in
good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment’.
absence of any central legislation, management in several states have refused to recognise a
trade union mainly on five grounds:

(1) most of the office bearers of the union were outsiders,

(2) and sometimes, those disapproved by management, particularly politicians and ex-
employees;

(3) the union consisted of only small number of employees;

(4) there were many rival unions in existence; and

(5) the trade union was not registered under the Trade Unions Act,1926.

Collective bargainingis an important aspect of employer employee relation. The right of

collective bargaining is not provided for all trade unions that exists but is provided for those
trade unions which are recognised. Registration of trade union is one thing and the
recognition of trade union as a sole bargaining agent for the purpose of collective bargaining
is another thing. Number of industrial strikes broke out on the question of recognition of
union.

4|Page
In practice, management allows the recognized Trade Union only for negotiations and
collective bargaining. As such, recognition of trade union serves as backbone of collective
bargaining. It has been debated time and again whether a trade union should be recognized or
not.

METHODS USED FOR RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

The methods used for determining the union strength are: (a) election by secret ballot; (b)
check-off method; and (c) physical verification of union membership1.

(a) Election by Secret Ballot: The secret ballot method is similar to the conduct of elections
in general for the purpose of entrusting the reins of Government to a political party. Under
this system all eligible workers of an industrial establishment may vote for a union of their
choice. Generally, elections through this method are conducted by the Registrar of Unions
who acts as a "neutral agent." The elected union enjoys the recognition status for a minimum
period, usually two years.

(b) Check-off Method: Under this system an employer is authorized by each individual
worker to deduct the union membership fees every month from his/her wages and credit the
same to the union of which he/she is a member. Through this system, the employer can have
a fair idea about the majority union in the establishment.

(c) Verification of Union Membership: In India verification of union membership is carried

out by an official organisation designated by the Government to ascertain the strengths of the
unions. For estimating the actual membership strength of the registered unions in an
establishment, the verification team members scrutinize the claim lists of the unions, their
membership fees books, membership records and account books and make physical sampling
of workers

1
“Methods for Recognition of Trade Union In Odisha”, Sabith Patra, Journal of Labour Law.

5|Page
CONDITIONS FOR RECOGNITION
Tradei. Unionsi. (Amendment)i. Act,i. 1947,i. s.i. 25D2i. providesi. thati. ai. tradei. unioni. willi. noti. bei.
entitledi. fori. recognitioni. byi. orderi. ofi. ai. labouri. courti. underi. s.i. 25Ei. unlessi. iti. fulfillsi. thei. followingi.
conditions,i. namely:

(1)i. thati. alli. itsi. ordinaryi. membersi. arei. workmeni. employedi. ini. thei. samei. industryi. ori. ini.
industriesi. closelyi. alliedi. toi. ori. connectedi. withi. another;

(2)i. thati. iti. isi. representativei. ofi. alli. thei. workmeni. employedi. byi. thei. employeri. ini. thati. industryi. ori.
thosei. industries;

(3)i. thati. itsi. rulesi. doi. noti. providei. fori. thei. exclusioni. fromi. membershipi. ofi. anyi. classi. ofi. thei.
workmeni. referredi. toi. ini. cls.i. (b);

(4)i. thati. itsi. rulesi. doi. noti. providei. fori. thei. procedurei. fori. declaringi. ai. strike;

(5)i. thati. itsi. rulesi. providei. thati. ai. meetingi. ofi. itsi. executivei. willi. bei. heldi. ati. leasti. oncei. ini. everyi.
sixi. months;i. and

(6)i. thati. iti. isi. ai. registeredi. tradei. unioni. andi. thati. iti. hasi. compliedi. withi. alli. provisionsi. ofi. thisi. Act.

PROBLEMS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

(1)i. Cani. ani. employeri. voluntarilyi. recognisei. ai. unioni. thati. isi. noti. registeredi. underi. thei. Act,i.
whichi. isi. ini. facti. ai. majorityi. union?

(2)i. Cani. ani. employeri. bei. compelledi. toi. recognisei. morei. thani. onei. union?

Notwithstandingi. thei. relativei. importancei. ofi. thesei. questionsi. andi. ratheri. unsatisfactoryi. answeri.
thani. wei. geti. fromi. thei. statute,i. thei. significancei. ofi. Tradei. Unionsi. (Amendment)i. Act,i. 1947,i.
musti. noti. bei. overlooked.i. Buti. eveni. thisi. mighti. noti. bei. puti. intoi. force.

RE- RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

Thei. Tradei. Unioni. (Amendment)i. Act,i. 1947,i. s.i. 28H3i. permitsi. thei. registeredi. tradei. unioni. whosei.
recognitioni. isi. withdrawni. underi. sub-s.i. (3)i. ofi. s.i. 28Gi. toi. makei. ani. applicationi. fori. re-recognitioni.
afteri. sixi. monthsi. fromi. thei. datei. ofi. withdrawali. ofi. recognition.

2
S. 25D, Trade Union Act, 1927

6|Page
PROBLEMS IN RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION

Recognition is one of the basic issues of industrial relation between employer and employee
as the employer has no obligation to give recognition to any union, in the earlier times the
attitude of the employer towards trade union has been hostile.

There are two major problems in union recognition:

1. All registered unions in India seem to have been enjoying industrial relation rights either
de facto or de jure though they happen to be craft, caste or category based union

2. Politicalisation of trade union is one of the basic reason mainly in CTUO that one party
supports secret ballot system and other support check off system due to which there is
repeated coalition management in several states have refused to recognise a trade union:

(1) most of the office bearers of the union were outsiders,

(2) and sometimes, those disapproved by management, particularly politicians and ex-
employees;

(3) the union consisted of only minimum number of employees;

(4) there were many rival unions in existence; and

(5) the trade union was not registered under the Trade Unions Act,1926

RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION UNDER CENTRAL ACT (TRADE UNION

ACT 1926)

Recognition means the expressed recognition of a registered trade union by an employer or

by an employers association for the purposes of collective bargaining.

Conditions for Recognition

All ordinary members are workmen employed in the same industry or in industries closely
allied to or connected with another;

3
S 28H, Trade Union Act,1927

7|Page
It is representative of all workmen employed by the employer in that industry or those
industries; Its rules do not provide for the exclusion from membership of any class of
workmen Its rules provide for the procedure for declaring a strike ;
Its rules provide that a meeting of its executive shall be held at least once in every 6 months It
is a registered trade union and that it has complied will all the provisions of the Trade unions
(amendment) Act, 1947.
CODE OF DISCIPLENE4 AND TRADE UNION RECOGNITION

Withi. thei. evolutioni. ofi. thei. voluntaryi. measuresi. ini. thei. naturei. ofi. thei. Codei. ofDisciplinei. ini. thei.
industry,i. ani. attempti. hasi. beeni. madei. toi. makei. ai. provisioni. fori. recognitioni. ofi. thei. unionsi. byi. thei.
employers.i. Underi. thei. Codei. ofi. Discipline,i. thei. recognizedi. unionsi. havei. beeni. giveni. certaini.
rightsi. ini. preferencei. toi. unrecognisedi. unions.

Thesei. rightsi. are:

(1)i. toi. raisei. issuei. andi. enteri. intoi. collectivei. agreementsi. withi. employersi. oni. generali. questionsi.
concerningi. termsi. ofi. employmenti. andi. conditionsi. ofi. servicei. ofi. workersi. ini. ani. establishmenti. ofi.
ini. thei. casei. ofi. ai. representativei. union,i. ini. ani. industryi. ini. ai. locali. area;

(2)i. toi. collecti. membershipi. fees/subscriptionsi. payablei. byi. membersi. toi. thei. unioni. withini. thei.
premisesi. ofi. thei. undertaking;

(3)i. toi. puti. upi. ori. causei. toi. puti. upi. ai. noticei. boardi. oni. thei. premisesi. ofi. thei. undertakingi. ini. whichi.
itsi. membersi. arei. employedi. andi. affixi. ori. causei. toi. bei. affixedi. thereoni. noticesi. relatingi. toi.
meeting,i. statementsi. ofi. accountsi. ofi. itsi. incomei. andi. expenditurei. andi. otheri. announcementsi.
whichi. arei. noti. abusive,i. indecenti. ori. inflammatoryi. ori. subversivei. ofi. disciplinei. ori. otherwisei.
contraryi. toi. thei. Code;

(4)i. fori. thei. purposei. ofi. preventioni. ori. settlementi. ofi. ani. industriali. dispute:

(a)i. toi. holdi. discussioni. withi. thei. employeesi. whoi. arei. membersi. ofi. thei. unioni. ati. ai. suitablei. placei.
ori. placesi. withini. thei. premisesi. ofi. office/factory/establishmenti. asi. mutuallyi. agreedi. upon;

(b)i. toi. meeti. andi. discussi. withi. ani. employeri. ori. anyi. personi. appointedi. byi. himi. fori. thei. purpose,

(c)i. toi. inspecti. toi. priori. arrangement,i. ini. ani. undertaking,i. anyi. placei. wherei. anyi. memberi. ofi. thei.
unioni. isi. employed;

4
Code of DIsciplene

8|Page
(5)i. toi. nominatei. itsi. representativesi. oni. thei. grievancei. committeei. constitutedi. underi. thei.
grievancei. procedurei. ini. ani. establishment;

(6)i. toi. nominatei. itsi. representativei. oni. jointi. managementi. councils,i. and

(7)i. toi. nominatei. itsi. representativei. oni. non-statutoryi. bipartitei. committeesi. fori. instancei.
productioni. committee,i. welfarei. committee,i. canteeni. committee,i. housei. allotmenti. committeesi.
Set upi. byi. managements.

Thei. Tradei. Unionsi. Act,i. 1926i. isi. completelyi. silenti. oni. thei. questioni. ofi. recognisingi. ai. tradei.
unioni. fori. thei. purposei. ofi. collectivei. bargaining.

Thisi. annexurei. Ai. laysi. downi. thei. followingi. criteriai. fori. recognisingi. ai. tradei. union:

(1)i. wherei. therei. arei. morei. thani. onei. union,i. ai. unioni. claimingi. recognitioni. musti. havei. beeni.
functioningi. fori. ati. leasti. onei. yeari. afteri. registration.i. Wherei. therei. isi. onlyi. onei. union,i. thisi.
conditioni. wouldi. noti. apply;

(2)i. thei. membershipi. ofi. thei. unioni. musti. coveri. ati. leasti. fifteeni. peri. centi. ofi. thei. workersi. ini. thei.
establishmenti. concerned.i. Membershipi. wouldi. bei. countedi. onlyi. ofi. thosei. whoi. havei. paidi. theiri.
subscriptioni. fori. ati. leasti. threei. monthsi. duringi. thei. periodi. ofi. sixi. monthsi. immediatelyi. precedingi.
thei. monthi. ofi. reckoning;

(3)i. ai. unioni. mayi. claimi. toi. bei. recognisedi. asi. ai. representativei. unioni. fori. workersi. ini. alli.
establishmentsi. ini. ani. industryi. ini. ai. locali. areai. ifi. iti. hasi. ai. membershipi. ofi. ati. leasti. 25i. peri. centi. ofi.
thei. workersi. ofi. thati. industryi. ini. area;

(4)i. wheni. ai. unioni. hasi. beeni. recognised,i. therei. musti. bei. noi. changei. ini. itspositioni. fori. ai. periodi. ofi.
twoi. years;

(5)i. wherei. therei. arei. severali. unionsi. ini. ani. industryi. ori. establishment,i. theonei. withi. thei. largesti.
membershipi. musti. bei. recognised;

(6)i. ai. representativei. unioni. fori. ani. industryi. ini. ani. areai. musti. havei. thei. righti. toi. representi. thei.
workersi. ini. alli. thei. establishmentsi. ini. thei. industry,i. buti. ifi. ai. unioni. ofi. workersi. ini. ai. particulari.
establishmenti. hasi. membershipi. ofi. 5o%i. ori. morei. ofi. thei. workers,i. iti. musti. havei. thei. righti. toi. deali.
withi. mattersi. ofi. purelyi. locali. interesti. as,i. fori. instance,i. thei. handlingi. ofi. grievances.i. Alli. otheri.
workers,i. whoi. arei. noti. membersi. ofi. thati. unioni. mighti. eitheri. operatei. throughi. thei. representativei.
unioni. fori. thei. industryi. ori. seeki. redressi. directly;i. and

9|Page
(7)i. onlyi. unionsi. thati. observei. thei. Codei. ofi. Disciplinei. arei. entitledi. toi. recognition.

STATES HAVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION ON RECOGNITION OF TRADE

UNION

In addition to the TU Act, certain state governments have enacted legal provisions concerning
the recognition of trade unions. However, each state has its own set of criteria, including
minimum requisite membership. For instance, in this case it is Maharashtra which has the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971, it governs the aspects related to the recognition of trade unions that have not been
specifically covered by the TU Act. Similar laws have been enacted in the states of West
Bengal, Rajasthan, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The states of Bihar and
Orissa have specific non-statutory provisions setting forth rules and principles for the
recognition of trade unions.

 Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act, 2010.

 Orissa Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Union Rules, 1994.
 West Bengal Trade Union Rules, 1998 has inserted an amendment by way of chapter
III A to Trade Union Act under the heading "Recognition of Trade Unions as
bargaining agents.

PROCESS OF RECOGNITION IN THE MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF

TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT,
19715

Under section 11 of The act application is filed for the recognition of union. It says that “any
union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding
the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than
thirty per cent. of the number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply in the
prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised union for such
undertaking.”

Section 12 of the act talks about recognition of the union:-

5
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971

10 | P a g e
(1) On receipt of an application from a union for recognition under section 11 and on
payment of the prescribed fees, not exceeding rupees five the Industrial Court shall, if it finds
the application on a preliminary scrutiny to be in order, cause notice to be displayed on the
notice board of the undertaking, declaring its intention to consider the said application on the
date specified in the notice, and calling upon the other union or unions, if any, having
membership of employees in that undertaking and the employers and employees affected by
the proposal to show cause, within a prescribed time, as to why recognition should not be
granted to the applicant-union.

(2) If, after considering the objections, if any, that may be received under sub-section (1)
from any other union or employers or employees, if any, and if after holding such enquiry in
the matter as it deems fit, the Industrial Court comes to the conclusion that the conditions
requisite for registration specified in section 11 are satisfied, and the applicant-union also
complies with the conditions specified in section 19 of this Act, the Industrial Court shall,
subject to the provisions of this section, grant recognition to the applicant-union under this
Act, and issue a certificate of such recognition in such form as may be prescribed.

11 | P a g e
 CASE ANALYSIS

CASE- CLW LABOUR UNION v. UNION OF INDIA6

CITATION – (2017) 3 LLJ 516

FACTS- The Petitioner no. 1 here is CLW Labour Union. It is a registered Union and has
been functioning as a bargaining agent throughput India, but it was not allowed to participate
in bargaining with the management at Chittaranjan Locomotive Works here which is referred
as respondent. The Union represents 62 percent of the employees at CLW.

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Union has been making
representations for long it has not been recognized by the management of the respondent,
curtailing the Union’s statutory right of bargaining with the management regarding the terms
and conditions of its members. The petitioners have filed writ petition for the recognition of
them as a trade union. According to them the production units of the Indian Railways have
been left out of consideration for electing the recognized Trade Unions although Unions at
other units of the Indian Railways are allowed to participate in negotiation after being
recognized through the process of election.

ISSUE- Whether the respondents should recognized petitioner as a recognized Trade Union
at Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and allow them to participate in bargaining with
management

REASONING – A staff council was constituted by the Railway Board with seventeen
members of the Union to represent the cause of the worker but their function is just advisory
in nature. They were given no power to negotiate. That’s why they are seeking recognition so
that they can negotiate with the management.

Respondents contended that they have a separate powers and functions of the permanent
negotiating machinery which are mentioned in the Railway Establishment Manual. They said
therefore there is no need to recognise the trade union. This doesn’t mean that Staff Council
is not a substitute for a recognized trade union, as the nature of work connected is also very
different. The railway establishment manual makes no distinction between the unions in the
production units and other establishments, the worker of the production units cannot be
discriminated against.

6
(2017) 3 LLJ 516

12 | P a g e
The Court said that Formation of a trade union has a specific purpose and object to achieve.
Disallowing this object to be fulfilled is bound to render the right to form union nugatory as
well as going against fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Taking away
the right to bargain by the trade union or denial of negotiation has never been the object of
the legislature. The court relied on the submissions on the petitioners that the Railway
Establishment Manual is at most a guideline or a compilation of executive instructions which
have no statutory force. It cannot be employed as a device to frustrate a right recognized by
the constitution of India to form a union and seek recognition nor can it go against the
fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

CONCLUSION – The present writ petition and justification for approaching the court for
the reliefs sought in the petition is allowed. The writ of Mandamus is issues directing the
respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the secret ballot and to take steps
pursuant to the result thereof for recognition as a trade Union, within four weeks from the
date of the communication of the order.

CASE - STEEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCITATION v. UNION OF INDIA7 (2o15)

CITATION – W.P. (C) No. 13683 of 2014

FACTS – The petitioners are two of the Labour Union functioning under the Rourkela Steel
Plant. They have impugned the letter dated 26.o3.2o14 issued by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner initiating the process of verification of membership of Trade Unions through
secret ballot so far as Rourkela Steel Plant is concerned. They have filed a writ petition with a
prayer to quash the impugned letter dated 26.o3.2o14 on the grounds that the election through
secret ballot is scheduled to be held in absence of any rules framed by the Central
Government.

ISSUE – Whether the letter dated 26.o3.2o14 should be quashed or not.

REASONING – It was said that the previous elections verification process of members of
the Union were being conducted by the state under the provision of the Rules for verification
of membership and recognition of Trade Union Rules 1994, as the State of Orissa was the
appropriate government.

7
W.P. (C) No. 13683 of 2014

13 | P a g e
The petitioners have raised three points to impugn the verification process and the election
through secret ballot (i) Absence of Rules for election through secret ballot so far as the
central sphere is concerned. (ii) Persons who are not members of the Trade Unions , have
been allowed to case vote, (iii) Relative strength of the Union has not been determined

The court was of the opinion that concerning the point no. (i) the Code of Discipline in
absence of rule has been accepted by all the Trade Unions to be the guiding factors so far as
the election through secret ballot for verification of membership of Unions and for
recognition of Union is concerned, and no election can be kept in abeyance awaiting a rule in
this regard to be framed by the appropriate Government. So far as point no. (iii) is concerned,
relative strength of the Union can be determined only after publication of the result of the
election through secret ballot, and without publication of result such relative strength cannot
be determined before-hand. So far as the second point, i.e. point no.(ii) regarding casting of
vote by non- members of the Trade Unions is concerned, the executive instruction of 198o
clearly states about the casting of votes. Nothing is found out that any specific objection at
appropriate times was raised regarding permitting the non – voters to vote in election.

The court further held that the objections raised by the petitioners on the aforesaid aspect is
too spacious to be accepted and were told to raise these points at appropriate time before the
next election.

CONCLUSION – The court therefore disposed of the writ petition on merit. The Court
referred to Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India where it has
expressly stated that a recognized Trade union being the principal representative of the
workers to bargain with the Management for the benefit and upkeep of the workers. The
process for verification of membership of the Union and recognition of Union should be kept
in place for discipline in the matter and to keep this sphere free of ambiguity.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

14 | P a g e
CASE – HMT MACHINE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2017)

FACTS – The petitioner Union is registered under Trade Union Act 1926 has made a
representation before the General Manager HMT to recognize them as the legal and
registered union formed among the workers of HMT to negotiate all the present and future
redressal. The complaint was addressed to the Labour Commissioner to verify and hold
enquiry with regard to illegal existence of Union Forum Unity and to recognize them as sole
legal union.

ISSUE – Whether the petitioner can be held as a valid trade union or not.

REASONING – The petitioner made a representation to the respondent to hold the enquiry
for recognizing them as valid trade union to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 including the petitioner.
So far no action has been taken against both of the representation, hence this writ petition.
The petitioner made a prayer in this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the
Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka and Assistant Labour Commissioner to consider the
representations made by the petitioner produced at Annexure-D dated o3.o4.2o17 to hold
enquiry in recognition of valid trade unions among respondents No.6 to 9 including the
petitioner, so as to enable their employees to elect for recognition of valid trade union.

After going through the nature of prayer to hold elections, the petition here is just and proper
and was told to allow the petition. The court further directed the respondents to hold elections
to form bargaining agent.

CONCLUSION – The petition is allowed and time for compliance is 2 months and further
the court has directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate order and hold
enquiry in recognition of the valid trade union.

15 | P a g e
CASE – NATIONAL FRONT OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS v. UNION OF INDIA8

CITATION – 2015 SCC Online Del 7006

FACTS – The petitioners have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
They are aggrieved by the fact that the Standing Committee has taken a decision to decline its
claim for verification and consequent recognition as a central trade union. It is the petitioner’s
case that recognition continues until fresh verification of membership is done, and that the
verification is done every 4 years.

ISSUE – Whether the petitioner should be recognised as a central trade union or not?

REASONING – Petitioner sent for verification of membership of various union by the

Ministry of Labour and Employment. The singular reason for rejection of the petitioner claim
for recognition was that “The CTUO has not submitted claims State – wise”

Being aggrieved by the same the union addressed a letter to the Standing Committee. The
Standing Committee concluded the meeting by stating that the process of general verification
should be stopped and commented that the removal of clause of engaging retired HC judge
was also wrong.

Any administrative difficulty in verification cannot come in the way of the union being
denied relief if, it is otherwise entitled to it in law. The only relief which the union can seek is
qua verification. It is also submitted that the union has acquiesced in the process whereby the
union case was rejected. The union has demonstrated that it meets the eligibility criteria and
therefore, it cannot be denied the relief as granting central recognition.

CONCLUSION – The respondents are directed to, once again, carry out verification with
regard to the union. The consequent effect of the same would be that in so far as union is
considered, the Standing order Committee’s order should be set aside.

Further the court directed to start with verification process accordingly. The petition and the
application are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

8
2015 SCC Online Del 7006

16 | P a g e
SWARAJYA KAMGAR SANGHTANA v. RASHTRAVADI MAHARASHTRA
GENERAL KAMGAR AND ANR9.

Citation – 2018 Indlaw MUM 955

FACTS- Case involves Trade union act, 1926, s-22- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Respondent No.1 moved
application u/s 13 for seeking de-recoginition of recognized trade union- Industrial Court
impressed that recognized Union had played a fraud and resorted to misrepresentation while
seeking recognition before industrial court in relation to s.19(iv). There can be no dispute that
allegation was an extremely serious allegation and would have various effects as any order to
be passed on this count would meant that recognized Union had misrepresented before
Industrial Court and had fraudently obtained recognition certificate.

ISSUE- Whether Union can be de recognized as per S.19(iv) of 1971 Act?

REASONING- It was reasoned in the court that it requires no debate that in a particular
Industrial Sector, S.22 of Act speaks about legal connection between Union and particular
industry. Industrial Court, while dealing with application of New Union seeking cancelliation
of recognition u/s 13 of 1971 act, should have probed into aspect of applicant of application
Union locus standi to seek cancellation of petitioners recognition.

CONCLUSION- Since S.13 of 1971 act doesn’t define as to who can move Industrial court
for seeking cancellation of the recognition, this aspect becomes important jurisdiction of
Industrial court cannot be invoked by any person or any Union who is unconnected with
Industry. Nothwithstanding same, Industrial court can suo moto invoke its jurisdiction U/s
13. Petition allowed.

9
2018 Indlaw MUM 955

17 | P a g e
ASIANET v. ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATIONS10

Citation- W.P. NO. 276 of 2018

FACTS- Petitioner is a registere trade union. Ext. P2 is an application preferred by the

petitioner for certificate of recognition invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala
Recognition of Trade Union Act, 2o1o. The grieveance of the petitioner is that the Ext. P2
application is not being considered by the competent authority namely, the second
respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks appropriate directions in this regard. In this writ
petition.

ISSUE- Whether only registered unions are entitled to the certificate of recognition?

REASONING- When the application before the employer is pending for one application, it
may not be appropriate for the petitioner to obtain a direction to the second respondent to take
decision on Ext P2. Ext P2 is a statutory authority. The rules framed under the Kerala Act
provides the procedure to be followed in the matter considering the application for certificate
of recognition. Statutory applications in the nature of Ext. P2 have to be considered by the
competent authority in accordance with the statute and the rules made thereunder. If the WPC
No. 276 of 2o18 3 pendency of the application preferred by the employer for cancellation of
registration, recognition of trade union of the petitioner does not create an impediment in the
statutory authority considering Ext P2 application in terms of statute.

CONCLUSION- In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
second respondent to take decision on Ext. P2 application in accordance with the law after
affording the petitioner as also the first respondent an opportunity of hearing. This shall be
done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

10
W.P. NO. 276 of 2018

18 | P a g e
CHACKOLA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS v. CHACKOLA T.M.T. UNION11

Citation – Writ Appeal of 2005

FACTS- The brief facts necessary for the decision is that the writ petitioner is the registered
trade union of the workmen of the Chakolas Spinning and Weaving Mill. Respondent 5 to 9
are recognised trade union of the trade mill. According to the writ petitioner, even though 152
workmen belong to it out of total 45o, it is not recognised as a bargaining agent Union
without the support of even fifteen employees are being recognised, it is submitted therefore
according to union, a referendum should be held to ascertain the relative support of the
unions. So, the original petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second
respondent to hold referendum and grant recognition of trade unions in accordance with the
Code of Discipline.

ISSUE- Whether in absence of any statutory provision, The labour commissioner can
conduct a referendum in private sector company for assessing the relative strength of union
for the purpose of granting recognition to them as a bargaining agent.

REASONING – The main ground argued is that the appellant not being a public sector
undertaking or an authority under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution, the writ
petition is not maintainable. As there is no statutory right the petitioners is not entitled to any
relief. It is a fundamental principle of administration of justice that “where there is a right,
there will be a remedy” the source of right can be a statute, custom or contract. The writ
petitioner succeeded to show that the R has got to hold a referendum to ascertain the relative
strengths of the trade union for the purpose of granting recognition.

The dispute regarding recognition is a perennial problem, the machinery for setting which can
be provided only by the legislature. The case of the petitioner can be correct. The
management may be encouraging and protecting trade unions having backing of the
workmen. Therefore it does not mean that in the face of unfair action by a private sector
management in the matter of recognition of trade union, the petitioner is left without remedy.
As a state, such a dispute will definitely be an industrial dispute which can be agitated under
the act.

11
Writ Appeal of 2005

19 | P a g e
CONCLUSION- Unlike this court, the Labour court is not bound by the principle “where
there is right, there is remedy”. But it can create rights when none exists, having regard to the
justness of the demand of the workmen. Therefore without prejudice to the alternate remedies
available to the writ petitioner, The appeal is allowed and dismiss the original petition.

PANDURANG SITARAM JADHAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH

ITS DAIRY MANAGER AND ANR12.

Citation- 2019 SC 1001

FACTS- The complaints in the case were filed as noticed above, in the year 2oo1 tough these
complainants had been working from the year 1983 onwards and last of such persons had
started working in the year 1987. In terms of the order of Tribunal dated 28.4.2oo4. these
complaints were allowed. It was noticed that the appellants were being denied the benefits of
permanency including yearly increments, bonus, PF, retirement benefits etc. as were
admissible to the regular employees. The plea of the Respondent was also noticed. But
permanency was granted considering that the appellants were not new appointees and had
been working even as on that date for last 12 to 2o years. The appellants filed complaints
before Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur u/s 28 of The Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act.

ISSUE- Whether the recognition of Trade Union can be done by employer?

REASONING- The recognition of a Trade Union or a group of employees can be done by

the Employer as well as the Recognition Procedure is given in the Act of 1971.

CONCLUSION - It was held that the Petition was allowed as all these persons were cease
and desist from such unfair labour practices.

12
AIR 2019 SC 1001

20 | P a g e
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v.
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS LABOUR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHPURAM13.

Citation- W.A. No. 2172 of 2o17 in WP(C)

FACTS- The fasciculus of the allegations, contentions and averments in the various
pleadings in this appeal would present on its exterior be a ubiquitous dispute between two
unions, regarding recognition from the establishment, but on a closer analysis what we see is
an existential conflict between two groups of employees of the Kerala State Financial
Enterprises Ltd.; one of which claims to be an Association registered under the Travancore
Cochin Literary Act, 1955 and the other to be a Trade Union registered under the provisions
of this act.

The appellant says that they had filed detailed objections, against the name proposed for the
sixth respondent, before the Registrar of Trade Union, but that the said Authority did not
consider the objections in its right perspective and went on to reject the same, thus allowing
the sixth respondent registration in the name presently given to them. After the Registrar of
Trade Unions thus allowed the registration of sixth respondent. Thus petition was filed.

ISSUE- Whether recognition of two Unions done in the present is valid?

REASONING- That being said, the position would have been no different even if the
appellant Association had been registered as a society under the T.C. Act even before the 6th
respondent Trade Union had been formed. This is because the power and jurisdiction of the
Registrar while dealing with applications for registration of Trade Union under is expressly
restricted and confined its specific statutory limitations. This becomes perspicuous from the
way of Section 7(2) of is worded. This section obligates the Registrar to seek the applicants
of a proposed Trade Union to alter its applied name only if it is identical or similar. Union is
not registered.

CONCLUSION- This view is irreproachable because, as is now well recognized, a court

acting under article 226 and while dealing in writ jurisdiction is prescribed from entering into
consideration of facts, especially severely disputed facts and it will be up to parties to avail

13
W.A. No. 2172 of 2o17 in WP(C)

21 | P a g e
their remedies, as are available to them under the civil law, based on circumstances and facts
to be proved by them with the aid of cogent evidence.

For the above, we see no reason to interfere in any manner with judgement impugned in this
appeal. We therefore close this appeal, however without making any order as to costs and
leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION v. RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS14.

Citation- (2oo3) 1 LLJ 984(Mad.)

FACTS- The union challenged a circular issued by the Railway Board prescribing that a
Union having 3o% membership can be granted recognition on the ground that the circular
was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution and that the procedure prescribed for
verifying membership strength was arbitrary.

ISSUE- Whether the procedure prescribed for verifying membership strength was arbitrary?

REASONING- High Court was of the opinion that the membership had to be decided on the
basis of annual returns or declarations made for the latest year by the zonal Unions. This
procedure was adopted when the petitioner was recognised. It had not been verified by head
counting or by a check-off-system or by secret voting of the railway employees. It or
declarations filed by the respective Unions. Further Legal mala fides as urgued could not be
assumed on mere surmises or conjectures. A check off system and secret ballot though
laudable, was not practicable, being costlier. The railway could not be compelled to adopt
such a system. Therefore, there was no arbitrariness in the impugned circular.

CONCLUSION- It was held by the high court that there was no violation of article 14 of the
Constitution and there was no arbitrariness in the circular which was given by the railway
authority. The procedure established in the impugned circular was very right in nature.

14
(2003) 1 LLJ 984(Mad.)

22 | P a g e
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD UNION v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY
BOARD15.

Citation- (1980) II LLJ 246 (Mad.)

FACTS- The electricity board granted recognition to the petitioner Union. Later on the
Union changed its name whereupon recognition to the petitioner union was granted. Later on
The Electricity Board withdrew the recognition. The present case is here before the court to
adjudicate the matter pertaining to the withdrawal of recognition of trade union here.

ISSUE- Whether withdrawal of recognition of trade union was valid.

REASONING- The reasoning involved in this case is that the composition of the Union may
be changed both in its name and the content because it doesn’t change or enlarge its
representative capacity. However the representative capacity will be only in respect of
ministerial staff, excluding peons, bill collectors and store keepers because these categories of
workers were not members of the union when recognition was granted. It was further said in
this particular case that a union cannot be prevented from changing its name. By enlarging its
coverage so as to include all categories of employees who fall under the definition of
workmen under section 2(i). of the standing orders act of the 1947. Neither in fact nor in law,
did it want to enlarge the coverage relating to representative capacity or bargaining power.

CONCLUSION- It was held in this particular case that the withdrawal of recognition of
trade union was valid and the trade union cannot be stopped or prevented from changing its
name. Only it cannot enlarge it’s representative capacity.

15
(1980) II LLJ 246 (Mad.)

23 | P a g e
T.N.E.B. ENGINEER’S SANGAM v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD16

Citation- (1996) 1 LLJ 727

FACTS- The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Sangam was accorded recognition by
Electricity Board issued show cause notice as to why the recognition granted should not be
withdrawn on the ground, that the members of Sangam staged a dharna and used
disrespectful words against the officers of the Board. The Sangam in its reply denied the
allegations and stated that they have neither indulged in any unfair labour practice nor have
trespassed into the office of the chairman. A writ petition was filed challenging the
withdrawal of recognition of trade union.

ISSUE- Whether withdrawal of recognition by employer was right or not.

REASONING- It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent has
initiated disciplinary action against some of the members of Sangam and only when charges
are proved in accordance with Standing Orders, it would open to respondent to conclude the
issues and withdraw the recognition. Agreeing with the above contention the High Court held
that the respondent has not given any opportunity to put forth the grievances of petitioners by
conducting an inquiry which will find whether the union has indulged in any unlawful
activity. The withdrawal of recognition of the union without affording requisite opportunity
to the petitioner is bad in law.

CONCLUSION- Therefore, before the withdrawal of recognition the employer must give
opportunity to the union and must also state valid reasons for derecognition. Derecognition
cannot be done in an arbitrary manner.

16
(1996) 1 LLJ 727

24 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

Historically, in India, the function of the trade unions was limited largely to collective
bargaining for economic considerations. However, trade unions now play a major role in
employee welfare activities, cultural programs and banking and medical facilities and by
creating awareness through training and educating the members of the trade union. on the
other hand, the dominant managerial objectives in collective bargaining in recent years owing
to heightened competition have been to reduce labour costs, increase production or
productivity, flexibility in work organization (multi-skilling /multi- functioning, changes in
worker grades etc.), increase in work time, reduction in regular staff strength via VRS, stress
on quality and so on.

Despite certain recent developments which may be largely considered as one-off incidents,
most trade unions have managed to foster an environment so as to enable a healthy discussion
between the workers and employers with respect to any demands the workers may have.
Furthermore, trade unions in India have, over the period of time, ensured to provide a forum
to facilitate better industrial relations, industrial growth and improve productivity.

However, Recognition of a Trade union is an aspect which cannot be as such implemented by

law, as it is not a question of law, but an attitude and a right earnest on part of management.
Any forceful recognition of a trade union by operation of law may not hold good in the long
term, because recognition involve human attitude, orientation, which cannot always be dealt
legally. Recognition must be out of the free will which must come as a result of managements
understanding of the trade unions. one can only hope that recognition by law may at least act
as catalyst and help in development of healthy industrial relations.

25 | P a g e