Need For Recognition of Trade Union:

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 recognisedRegistration of trade union is one thing and the recognition
of trade union as a sole bargaining agent fot the purpose of collective bargaining is another
thing. Number of industrial strikes broke out on the question of recognition of union.

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. This is because there is so far no enforced central legislation on this subject, i.e.,
recognition of trade union.

In Kalindi and Others v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltdthe Supreme Court held
that there is no right to representation as such unless the company, by its standing orders,
recognizes such right. The decision was reiterated in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
Maharashtra General. Kamgar Union & Ors.

Rights of Union Recognition

In workmen of kampali co operative sugar factory ltd v. Management of kampli co operative

sugar factory ltdthe court held that when there is no provision regarding recognition in the
statute the right cannot be enforced by writ petition . when there is no statutory provision or
agreement of recognition between the employer and union , no legal right is created simply
because the union has been recognised by the management and withdrawl of recognition does
not violate any right.

The key distinction between registration of trade union and recognition of trade union is the
registration of trade union is done with the registar while recognition of trade union is done
by the management as collective bargaining agent (in case of one union) and collective
bargaining council in case of many council). Both are not mandatory under the Trade Unions
Act. Trade unions once recognized are conferred certain rights but the trade union as such has
no inherent right by itself to be recognised, it is the discretion of the management to
recognise any such trade union.

This lead to the need of the legislating provisions regarding recognition of trade union as
there were no provisions regarding recognition in Trade Unions Act 1929 an amendment to
this act was brought in 1947 regarding procedure, conditions and rights of trade union, but
the provisions regarding recognition of trade has remained a dead letter till today and only of
historical importance and they don’t form a part of the Act.Labour being a concurrent subject
certain states like Maharastra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh for instance have
separate laws relating to reconition and certain voluntary codes all these are buried in
practical aspects.
The law in India does not make it mandatory for managements to have unions, to recognize
them or to engage in any kind of collective bargaining. However, since the constitution of
India guarantees freedom of association, managements cannot follow anti-union policies. Just
as tax avoidance is legal, but tax evasion is illegal, union avoidance is legal, but union
evasion is not.
The right to grant recognition to trade unions within the meaning of Constitution of India, art.
19(1)(c) is a fundamental right or not is answered in negative because the right to form
association does not carry with it the concomitant right that the association must be
recognised by the employers. Hence withdrawal of recognition does not infringe the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(c)

Registration And Recognition Of Trade Union

Although no specific right is granted to any trade union with respect to the right to be
recognized, it has become crucial in India to develop a mechanism wherein a trade union is
recognized formally by the employer. Recognition is the process through which the employer
accepts a particular trade union as having a representative character and hence, will be
willing to engage in discussions with the union with respect to the interests of the workers.
This process is important so as to ensure smooth collective bargaining and stability of
industrial relations. On the other hand, registration of a trade union carries certain inherent
benefits with it.

A registered trade union is deemed to be a body corporate, giving it the status of a legal entity
that may, inter alia, acquire and hold property, enter into contracts, and sue others.A
registered trade union is also immune from certain contractual, criminal and civil
proceedings. However, registration is optional and not mandatory. Generally, registration of
trade unions under the TU Act does not automatically imply that a particular trade union has
gained recognition status granted by the employer.Unless different Indian states have specific
legal provisions pertaining to recognition of trade unions, it is generally a matter of
agreement between the employer and trade union. Ideally, a trade union must obtain
legitimacy through registration under the TU Act and then seek recognition as a sole
bargaining agent either under the appropriate law or an employer-employee agreement.

Advantage of A Recognized Trade Union:

The rights conferred on a recognized trade union are as follows

1.The executive of the trade union is entitled to negotiate with employer regarding
employment, non employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person or
of all, if any dispute arsis between the executive and the employer on these issues it must be
reffered to then registar whose decision is final.
2.The executive of the recognized trade union is entitled to display the notices of the trade
union in the premises where the employees are employed and the employer must make
necessary arrangements
3.To collect some payable by the members to the union on the premises where wages are
being paid
4.To appear behalf of any employee or employees in any domestic or departmental enquiry
5.The recognised union alone is given the right to appoint its nominee to represent its
workman in the works commission under the industrial dispute act 1947
6.A Trade Union being the sole bargaining agent or a principal bargaining agent.

The Bombay high court has held that only the recognised trade union can enter into settment
with the employer and not any other union or employees independently can do so.

In Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union, Bombay and Anr. v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. and
Ors., the underlying assumption made by the Supreme Court was that a recognised union
represents all the workmen in the industrial undertaking or in the industryThe recognised
Trade union also has a duty to submit returns to the registar within the stipulated period of
time failure of which would be punishable with penalty.

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 ealier times the
attitude of the employer towards trade union has been hostile.

There are two major problems in union recognition

1. All registered union 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
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 minium 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
Registration of trade union Section 7,8,9,10,11

Powers of Registrar

-North East Railway Mazdoor Union v Registrarof Trade union

It is administrative duty of registrar to record changes in name of office bearers.He can only
reasonably enquire to discover Whether recorded facts conform to actual facts.

-Inland Steam Navigation Workers union

Duties of Registrar were to examine the applications and to look at objects for which Union was
formed.If these objects were objects set out in rules and if those objects did not go outside objects
prescribed in the Act and if all requirements of the Act are complied with , it was his duty to register
the union.

-Tata Electric Companies v Registar of Trade Union

Trade union member not submitted annual audit statement and had doubt regarding the audit year
so in this case Registrar cannot cancel registration.

-Tata Workers Union v State of Jharkhand

No provision of law provides for holding of election under the supervision of Registrar,Trade union.

-Keshoram Rayon Workers union v Registrar of Trade union

-Mukund Ram Tanti v S.I Raza Registrar Trade Union

Registrar has no power to declare the election of office bearers unconstitutional. But where
petitioner has himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the Registrar by requesting him to make an
enquiry , he cannot be subsequently be allowed to raise an objection that the Registrar acted
without jurisdiction, he was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the registrar if the result
of the enquiry goes against him.

-IFFCO Phulpur Karamchari Sangh v Registrar of Trade Union

Once a trade union is registered by Registrar under Section 8 .Certificate of Registration continues to
hold good until it is cancelled by the registrar.Change in the name of office bearers does not amount
to registration or cancellation of the certificate.

In re Inland Steam Navigation Workers Union (Imp)

Registrar refused to register trade union because according to him application for registration is an
attempt to have another trade union
Calcutta HC held that decision of the registrar was wrong. Functions of registrar are prescribed in
Section 8 so accordingly the registrar on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all
requirements of Act in regard to submission must register trade union.

-Bombay Fire Fighter Service union v Registrar Trade Union

Registrar had not addressed a show cause notice in writing at its proper notice before cancellation
of registration so the order of registrar of cancellation for the continued violations of Section 28 was
set aside by the court and held the order was illegal and improper.

Tata Electric Companies Officers Guild v Registrar of Trade union

For the cancellation of registration of trade union will full contravention of the provisions of the act
is necessary.

1.Registrar of Trade union v Mihir Kumar Guha AIR 1963 Cal 56

Held that a trade union whose head office is in the presidency town has only a single chance of
appeal against the decision of registrar which is to HC while a trade union whose office is in muffasil
has two chances of appeal first the local court and second in the HC.

Here in this case an appeal was granted against the order of Single judge under Section 11(1)(a)in
the issue of cancellation of the certificate of registration by the registrar granted to the employees
of State Insurance Employees.

2.Mukund Iron and Steel Works v V G Deshpande

Question was whether the registrar has power to withdraw order of cancellation of registration ?

Registrar has no power to review his order so he cannot withdraw order therefore any withdrawl of
the order of cancellation is without jurisdiction.

In this case registrar cancelled the registration of a union for contravention of the provisions of
Section 28 for not filing annual report.Later on Registrar cancelled his order of cancellation on filing
of annual returns subsequently.

If the Registrar cancels or withdraws the registration of a trade union, it has the option to appeal or
to apply for fresh registration .If appeal succeeds the order of cancellation or withdrawl of
registration would be considered as bad ab initio and trade union would continue on the register as
if the order has not been passed.If a fresh registration is permitted it would operate from date
thereof. Once the Registrar withdraws registration of a trade union he had no power left qua that
order. He has no power left to review it .He certainly have no power to withdraw it because of
subsequent events .

3.ACC Rajanka Lime Stone Quarries Mazdoor Union v Registrar

If registration is unreasonably delayed as no action is taken on application for for more than
3months then a writ under Article 226 of Constitution can be issued.

Section 13 – Incorporation of Trade Union

An unregistered trade union could not be sued in tort by using a member thereof in representative
capacity..The proper course in such a case will be to sue a member for any cause of action that lay
against that member as an unregistered union is just a voluntary association of individuals having no
corporate entity.Any person aggrieved by a wrong committed by a member of such union should
bring an action against all persons personally who were members of union at time of commission of
alleged wrong .

Section 22

Case – 1. M.T Chander Senan v Sukumaran -held that If subscriptions are not paid according to the
bye laws of trade union,persons who have failed to pay can not be considered members of trade
union.

It was held that these amendments were contrary in the letter and spirit to the trade union act.

Section 6 Provisions to be contained in rules of trade union

-B.S V Hanumantha Rao v Deputy Registrar of Trade Union

Rules of hyderabd Allwyn Workers were amended to provide for making president of union as
election authority empowering him to nominate all office bearers and denying the general body
authority the authority to remove president from the office before expiry of his term these
amendments were registered by the Registrar too.

It was held that these amendments were contrary in the letter and spirit to the trade union act.

- Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees unon v Cement Corporation of India

It was held by SC that employee would not automatically cease to member of trade union on
termination of his employment because there is no provision in this regard in the trade union act or
in the constitution of the union itself.

Indian Oxygen Ltd v Their Workmen

A dispute regarding workmen of one another factory represented by the union was referred to the
tribunal.The membership was limited to the workmen of that factory only.The constitution was
amended to embrace workmen of other factories and the name of union was changed before
reference but amendment was not effected according to the provisions of this Act.

It was held that award of the Tribunal could not extend to workmen of other factories.

Some Landmark Cases

In Dallimore v Williams and Jesson and Brimelow v Casson held that musicians and actors were
workmen

2.National Association of local Govt officers v Boltan Corpn

This should be used in wider sense when dealing with condition of employment and collective
bargaining.Word trade springs from tread and implies a way of life or occupation.Here trade includes
employers also.

-.Bangalore Water Supply Sewage Board v A Rajappa

Question was what do you mean by industry

If performing state function you cannot go for strike or collective bargaining. If services are provided
by statutory corporation then you cannot be industry.If industry is under state function then it will
not be industry and workmen working in that establishment cannot form trade union. If industry
performing welfare function of State persons working in industry can form trade union.It depends on
function and nature of activities.and relationship of employer and employee in that activity.

In above case tests laid down by SC was focus is on function and decisive test is nature of activity
with emphasis on employer and employee

-.Registrar of Trade Union v Mihir Kumar – If such services are rendered by statutory corporation it
makes no difference. If industry is owned by state then also workmen of it will not form trade union.

Landmark cases

-Standard Bombay v Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

SC held industrial activity involved cooperation of employer and employee and its object is
satisfaction of material human needs. In industrial activity both employer and employee are
involved for rendering material services to public and those working in it nd have control on policy
are workmen.

-Standard Vaccum Refining Company v Their Workmen

SC held that if coontractprs hires employee who come from direct/indirect employment should be
given the status of regular employee. Standard vaccum was industrial concern hired some workmen
and their was difference in wages of the workmen hired and regular workmen.When we talk of
trade dispute it was with few people and there was difference in status of both employees. As ad
hoc workers were not in employment with employer but have with contract it was held that it was
not trade dispute.

Sec 3 Trade union

-Rangswami V Registrar of Trade Union(Imp)

Here workers working in Raj bhawan formed association and reached Registrar for registration of
trade union.registrar refused to register as these workmen were not providing services in industrial
establishment and were not providing services to public and these workers were not engaged in any
commercial activity. Though contract of employment was entered with State of Madras but workers
engaged in Raj Bhawan were providing services to people living in Raj Bhawan and not provided
services to public at large.

In Bangalore Water Supply Cases

When employer and employee are engaged in production of things which are productive to
society .When there is systematic activity it is called as industry, where activities are carried on on
daily basis and activities are carried on continuous basis .Systematic activity is carried on with
cooperation of employer and employee,

Immunities of Trade Union Section 17,18,19

Cases

-.P Mukundan v Mohan kandy

Strike per se is not actionable wrong

-office bearers and the member of registered trade union are immune against the legal proceedings
linked to the strike of workmen.

-Ram Vilas service v Simpson and group companies

If cessation of work is the result of strike effect of strike will be nullified if the management either by
themselves or through their customers are permitted to remove the goods either manufactured by
the management or coming into custody of management in the course of trade.

-RBI V Ashish Kusum

In order to secure immunity from civil liability inducement and procurement of breaches of contract
of employment in furtherance of trade dispute or interference with business of another person in
furtherance of trade dispute must be by lawful means and not by means which are illegal and
wrongful under other provisions of the law.

Movements /agitations /demonstrations by employees for purpose of compelling the employer to

withdraw certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against some of them was in contemplation or
furtherance of trade dispute so not actionable but the inducement of breach of contract must not be
by unlawful means.

-Simpson and Group Companies Workers Union v Amco Batteries

Physical interference or duress with free movement of executives ,contractors ,staff ,suppliers and
others and otherwise publically and physically obstructing the free movement of cars ,vehicles and
lorries carrying raw material intermediaries, end product into and out of factory premises could not
be justified as a trade union right.

The methods of persuation are limited to oral and visual methods and it does not extend to physicl
obstruction.
-Standard Chartered Bank v Hundustan Engineering and general mazdoor sabha

HC decreed that suit of bank restraining defendant union from holding demonstrations within a
radius of 100 metres from the suit property.

-Rohtas Industries Staff Union v State of bihar

Facts – There was a trade dispute which was referred to arbitration .Tribunal said that strike was
illegal as no notice to go for strike was given and Arbitral Tribunal said that trade union to pay
damages for illegal strike .then employer filed a suit against the employees for participating in illegal
strike

Question was whether employees have any right to claim damages against employees participating
in illegal strike.Section 26 of Industrial Dispute Act mentions Penalty for illegal strikes and lock outs ‘

(1) Any workman who commences,continues or otherwise acts in furtherance od strike which is
illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one month or with fine which may extend to Rs 50.

Held - Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar the court held that even if a strike was illegal
under the provisions of s. 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the striking workers were
entitled to protection under s. 18 Trade Unions Act.

The Supreme Court held that workers could not be asked to make good the loss suffered by
the employer because of the illegal strike the object of which was inter-union rivalry.

In West India Steel Company Ltd. verses Azeez, (1990) II LLJ 133 (Kerala),
a Trade Union leader obstructed work in the factory for five hours
protesting against deputation of workman to work in another section of
the factory. It was held that a worker, including a Trade Union leader,
inside the factory is bound to obey the reasonable instruction given by his
superiors and carry out the duties assigned to him. The mere fact that
such worker is a Trade Union leader does not confer him any immunity in
this regard.

In the landmark case of Jay Engineering Works v. State the court reiterated this view and stated that
the exemptions granted under s. 17 of the act do not extend to:

“agreements to commit an offence or intimidation, molestation or violence, where they

amount to an offence. Members of a trade union may resort to peaceful strike such as
cessation of work with the object of enforcing their claims. Such strikes must be peaceful and
never violent and there is no exemption where an offence is committed. Therefore, a
movement by workmen by gathering together either outside or inside an industrial
establishment within the working hours is permissible when it is peaceful and does not
violate the provisions of law. However, when such a gathering is unlawful or commits an
offence then such exemption is lost. Thus where the workmen resort to confinement of
persons, criminal trespass or where it becomes violent or indulges in criminal force or assault
or mischief to person or property, then the exemption granted under s. 17 of the act cannot be
claimed.”

In this case the court defined gherao as a “physical blockade of a target either by encirclement or
forcible occupation.” It declared that the objective of a gherao is to force the management in power
to agree to the demands of the workers, without regard for the machinery provided for redressal of
complaints as provided for by the law, and hence it took the view is that a gherao is illegal and the
persons involved cannot be granted immunity from criminal prosecution.

S. 17 of the Trade Unions Act lays down the grounds for providing the members of a trade union
immunity from prosecution in criminal proceedings for any act performed by them while carrying
out legitimate functions of the trade union. Under the definition of s. 17, the ‘agreement’ must be an
agreement to do something contained in s. 15 and it cannot be an agreement to commit an offence
as defined under s. 40 IPC. T

That this protection is not afforded to any agreements entered into by members of a trade union to
perform illegal actions or offences as defined under s. 40 IPC. An agreement to commit an offence or
illegal act, even if it is in furtherance of a trade dispute, would not fall within the protection granted
by this section.

Section 17 lays down that "no office bearer or member of a registered Trade Union shall be
liable to punishment under sub-section (2) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) in respect of any agreement made between the members for the purpose of furthering
any such object of the Trade Union as is specified in Section 15, unless the agreement is an
agreement to commit an offence." Thus S. 17 confers immunity from liability in case of
criminal conspiracy under S. 120-B of the IPC committed by an office-bearer or member of a
registered Trade Union. The immunity is available only in respect of agreements made
between the members for the propose of furthering any such object of the Trade Union as is
specified in S. 15 of the Act. If the agreement is an agreement to commit an offence,
protection of S. 17 is not available. The effect of S. 17 is that an agreement by two or more
members of a registered Trade Union to do or cause to be done any act in furtherance of a
trade dispute shall not be punishable as a conspiracy unless such act if committed by an
individual constitutes an offence. In R.S. Ruiker verses Emperor, AIR 1935 Nag. 149, it was
held that "Trade Unions have the right to declare strikes and do certain acts in furtherance of
trade disputes. They are not liable civilly for such acts or criminally for conspiracy in the
furtherance of such acts as Trade Unions Act permits, but there is nothing in that Act which
apart from immunity from criminal conspiracy allows immunity from any criminal offences.
Indeed any agreement to commit an offence, would under S. 17 of the Trade Union Act,
make them liable for criminal conspiracy..." An agreement to commit an offence would under
S. 17 make the member of a Trade Union liable for criminal conspiracy. But when the
members of the Union resorts to unlawful confinement of persons or criminal tress pass or
they indulge in criminal assault or mischief to a person or property there is no exemption
from liability.

S. 18 of the Trade Unions Act provides for exemption from prosecution in civil cases. It
essentially states that immunity from civil proceedings is granted to the office bearers and
members of a registered trade union for the offence of bringing about a breach of contract of
employment between the employer and the employee. The trade union itself is also granted
immunity from civil proceedings for the offence of inducing a person to break his contract of
employment between the employer and the employee or of interfering with the trade,
business or employment of some other person, provided that such inducement is in
furtherance of a trade dispute. However the section clearly states that this inducement must
be entirely legal and must be done by lawful means.

The meaning of this section is that if the inducement to break the contract of employment has
been put forth legally, without threat of force or violence or malice, and if it is in furtherance
of a trade dispute, then it is not actionable under civil law. Similarly, if there is no threat of
violence or use of force and there is still interference in the trade, business or employment of
some person, then immunity is granted provided it was done in furtherance of a trade dispute.

Sub-clause (2) of this section provides that the trade union will not be liable for any tortuous
act done by its agent if it is able to prove that the agent acted without their knowledge or in
contravention of his orders.

Unlike s. 17 which granted immunity to office-bearers and members of a trade union, this
section affords immunity to office-bearers and members of a registered trade union as well as
the trade union itself. This protection is given to these three categories of legal persons for
any action done by them:

 in contemplation of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party

 In furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party

Furthermore, this immunity from prosecution in civil proceedings is extended only to those
specific actions which are as follows:

 An act that induces some person to break his contract of employment

 An act that is in interference with:
 Trade
 Business
 Employment of some other person
 Right of some other person to dispose of his capital as he deems fit
 Right of some other person to dispose of his labour as he deems fit
It is very important to note that the immunity granted under this section is limited. The
inducement given by the trade union or its members must only be an inducement to break a
contract of employment. If it is an inducement to break any other contract such as a contract
for sale of goods or carriage, then the protections given by this section will not apply.
Furthermore, the inducement to break the contract of employment must be entirely legal and
cannot contain an offence as defined under s. 40 IPC.

 Immunity from Civil Suits in Certain Cases

 Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act deals with the immunity from civil suits in certain
cases. The section is reproduced below:
 "(1) No suit or other legal proceedings should be maintainable in any Civil Court
against any registered Trade Union or any office-bearer or member thereof in respect
of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member
of the Trade Union is a partyon the ground only that such act induces some other
person to break a contract of employment or that it is in interference with the trade,
business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person
to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills.
 (2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding
in any Civil Court in respect of tortuous act done in contemplation or furtherance of
a trade dispute by an agent of the Trade Union if it is proved that such person acted
without the knowledge of, or
contrary to express instructions given by the executive of the Trade Union."
Thus S. 18( 1) provides immunity to registered Trade Unions, their office-bearers and
members from civil suits or other proceeding of a civil nature in respect of any act done in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute on the ground only that:
(a) Such act induces some other person to break a contact of employment (such as persuation
exercised on Trade Union members and others to join a strike), or
(b) such act is an interference (i) with the trade, business or employment of some other
person, or
(ii) with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills.
Section 18(2) provides immunity to registered Trade Unions from liability in respect of
tortuous acts done by their agents in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, if it is
proved that the agent acted:
(a) without the knowledge of the executive of the Trade Union, or
(b) contrary to the express instruction given by the executive of the Trade Union

- R.S. RUIKAR v. EMPEROR

- AIR 1935 Nag 149

-
 - Trade unions are not liable civilly for such acts or criminally for conspiracy in
furtherance of such act as trade unions Act permits. but there is nothing in the Act
which apart from immunity in criminal conspiracy allows immunity from any
criminal offence.
-
- there is no immunity if the act falls within the scope of sec 7 of the criminal law
amendment Act 1932.

In Rohtas Staff Employees Union Case was held that S. 18 of the Trade Unions
Act confers immunity even in cases of strikes which are illegal under Section 22 to 24
of theIndustrial Disputes Act provided it is resorted to for the purposes of "furtherance
of trade disputes". The employer is not entitled to claim any damages against the
workmen of a registered Trade Union which are found guilty of participation in such
illegal strikes

the case of Western India Cine Employees v. Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd., the question that arose before the
court was whether the collective action taken by the workers abstaining from work which caused
loss to the employer, at the call of the trade union was protected under the provisions of s. 18?

The court ruled in the affirmative and held that the trade union issued directions to its members.
However these directions were issued in an entirely legal manner, no intimidation, coercion or
violence was used. The court ruled that the trade union was carrying out its legitimate activities and
enjoyed immunity under s. 18 of the Trade Unions Act.

S. 18 of the Trade Unions Act provides for exemption from prosecution in civil cases. It
essentially states that immunity from civil proceedings is granted to the office bearers and
members of a registered trade union for the offence of bringing about a breach of contract of
employment between the employer and the employee. The trade union itself is also granted
immunity from civil proceedings for the offence of inducing a person to break his contract of
employment between the employer and the employee or of interfering with the trade,
business or employment of some other person, provided that such inducement is in
furtherance of a trade dispute. However the section clearly states that this inducement must
be entirely legal and must be done by lawful means.

The meaning of this section is that if the inducement to break the contract of employment has
been put forth legally, without threat of force or violence or malice, and if it is in furtherance
of a trade dispute, then it is not actionable under civil law. Similarly, if there is no threat of
violence or use of force and there is still interference in the trade, business or employment of
some person, then immunity is granted provided it was done in furtherance of a trade dispute.

Sub-clause (2) of this section provides that the trade union will not be liable for any tortuous
act done by its agent if it is able to prove that the agent acted without their knowledge or in
contravention of his orders.
Unlike s. 17 which granted immunity to office-bearers and members of a trade union, this
section affords immunity to office-bearers and members of a registered trade union as well as
the trade union itself. This protection is given to these three categories of legal persons for
any action done by them:

 in contemplation of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party

 In furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the trade union is a party

Furthermore, this immunity from prosecution in civil proceedings is extended only to those
specific actions which are as follows:

 An act that induces some person to break his contract of employment

 An act that is in interference with:
 Trade
 Business
 Employment of some other person
 Right of some other person to dispose of his capital as he deems fit
 Right of some other person to dispose of his labour as he deems fit

It is very important to note that the immunity granted under this section is limited. The
inducement given by the trade union or its members must only be an inducement to break a
contract of employment. If it is an inducement to break any other contract such as a contract
for sale of goods or carriage, then the protections given by this section will not apply.
Furthermore, the inducement to break the contract of employment must be entirely legal and
cannot contain an offence as defined under s. 40 IPC

COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA.

1996 (2) CPR 39

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 18 OF TRADE UNION ACT DOES NOT OPERATE AS

A BAR TO THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST A TRADE UNION UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Collective Bargaining Cases

Collective Bargaining is a method by which problem of wages and employment are resolved
amicably ,peacefully and voluntarily between labour and management.

All India Bank Employees Association v National Industrial Tribunal

SC held that right to form associations or union is fundamental right under Art 19(1)(c) of the
constitution but yet collective bargaining is not elevated to the status of fundamental right.

ILO definition of collective bargaining

Negotiation about working conditions and terms of employment between employers ,group of
employeers or one or more employers on one hand and one or more representatives on other
hand with a view to conclude an agreement known as collective bargaining agreement.
Therefore it’s a procedure ,arrangement and binding on both the employer and employee.

Right to collective Bargaining received statutory recognition by enactment of Trade Union

Act 1926.A trade union can sponsor and raise trade dispute attain respect on behalf of its
members in legal proceedings in consequence of trade dispute.

Workers of B and C Co. v Labour commissioner – A trade union can’t represent a workmen
who is not its member .Management will be bound to recognise a trade union which has
enrolled a majority of its members.

Ram Kapil Singh v Ali Hasan

Worker who is a member of unregistered trade union is entitled to be represented by officer

of registered trade union connected with or by any other workmen in industry from which
such worker is employed.

Forms of Collective Bargaining

1.Negotiation

2.Mediation

3.Arbitration – Voluntary arbitration and compulsory arbitration

Essential Pre-Requisites for Collective Bargaining:

Effective collective bargaining requires the following prerequisites:

(i) Existence of a strong representative trade union in the industry that believes in
constitutional means for settling the disputes.

(ii) Existence of a fact-finding approach and willingness to use new methods and tools for the
solution of industrial problems. The negotiation should be based on facts and figures and both
the parties should adopt constructive approach.

(iii) Existence of strong and enlightened management which can integrate the different
parties, i.e., employees, owners, consumers and society or Government.

(iv) Agreement on basic objectives of the organisation between the employer and the
employees and on mutual rights and liabilities should be there.

(v) In order that collective bargaining functions properly, unfair labour practices must be
avoided by both the parties.

(vi) Proper records for the problem should be maintained.

(vii) Collective bargaining should be best conducted at plant level. It means if there are more
than one plant of the firm, the local management should be delegated proper authority to
negotiate with the local trade union.

(viii) There must be change in the attitude of employers and employees. They should realise
that differences can be resolved peacefully on negotiating table without the assistance of third
party.

(ix) No party should take rigid attitude. They should enter into negotiation with a view to
reaching an agreement.

(x) When agreement is reached after negotiations, it must be in writing incorporating all term
of the contract.

Main Features of Collective Bargaining:

Some of the salient features of collective bargaining are:

1. It is a Group Action:

Collective bargaining is a group action as opposed to individual action. Both the parties of
settlement are represented by their groups. Employer is represented by its delegates and, on
the other side; employees are represented by their trade union.

2. It is a Continuous Process:

Collective bargaining is a continuous process and does not end with one agreement. It
provides a mechanism for continuing and organised relationship between management and
trade union. It is a process that goes on for 365 days of the year.

3. It is a Bipartite Process:

Collective bargaining is a two party process. Both the parties—employers and employees—
collectively take some action. There is no intervention of any third party. It is mutual given-
and-take rather than take-it-or-leave-it method of arriving at the settlement of a dispute.

4. It is a Process:

Collective bargaining is a process in the sense that it consists of a number of steps. The
starting point is the presentation of charter of demands by the workers and the last step is the
reaching of an agreement, or a contract which would serve as the basic law governing labour-
management relations over a period of time in an enterprise.

5. It is Flexible and Mobile and not Fixed or Static:

It has fluidity. There is no hard and fast rule for reaching an agreement. There is ample scope
for compromise. A spirit of give-and-take works unless final agreement acceptable to both
the parties is reached.

6. It is Industrial Democracy at Work:

Collective bargaining is based on the principle of industrial democracy where the labour
union represents the workers in negotiations with the employer or employers. Industrial
democracy is the government of labour with the consent of the governed—the workers. The
principle of arbitrary unilateralism has given way to that of self-government in industry.
Actually, collective bargaining is not a mere signing of an agreement granting seniority,
vacations and wage increase, by sitting around a table.

7. It is Dynamic:

It is relatively a new concept, and is growing, expanding and changing. In the past, it used to
be emotional, turbulent and sentimental, but now it is scientific, factual and systematic.

8. It is a Complementary and not a Competitive Process:

Collective bargaining is not a competitive process i.e., labour and management do not coopt
while negotiating for the same object. It is essentially a complementary process i.e., each
party needs something which the other party has, namely, labour can put greater productive
effort and management has the capacity to pay for that effort and to organise and guide it for
achieving the enterprise’s objectives.

The behavioural scientists have made a good distinction between “distributive bargaining”
and “integrative bargaining”. The former is the process of dividing up the cake which
represents what has been produced by the joint efforts of management and labour.

In this process, if one party wins something, the other party, to continue the metaphor of the
cake, has a relatively smaller size of the cake. So it is a win-lose’ relationship. The integrative
bargaining, on the other hand, is the process where both the parties can win—each party
contributing something for the benefit of the other party.

9. It is an Art:

Collective bargaining is an art, an advanced form of human relations.

Essential conditions for collective bargaining

- Trade unions have right to organise

- It lead to Stable and Strong Trade union
- There must be suitable framework for collective bargaining to take place
 - It depends upon the attitude of employer and Trade Union

Statutory and Non Statutory Bargaining

1.Legislaations
2,Voluntary Initiatives by parties

Purposes of Collective Bargaining

-It is means of regulating wages and conditions of services

-it is means of regulating labour management relations
-It lessens the chance of strikes and lockout
-It creates an atmosphere if peace and mutual understanding of problems
-It avoids litigation and is a democratic way of dispute resolution
-it is quick and efficient process, does not involve ny expenses.

Employers and Employee undertake to abide by the terms and conditions of collective
bargaining.
-Ensures self protections to the employees against the unemployed workers
-It is rule of law in industrial relations

Advantages
1.It avoids litigation and more democratic way of dispute resolution
2.It results in harmonius relations between employer and employee
3.It is quick and efficient way
4.industry wise Collective Bargaining has advantage of getting uniform pattern for the
entire country.
5.It may mitigate diverse tendencies of division on the basis of caste ,language.

Disadvantages
1.Consumers who are invariably affected by the Collective Bargaining are kept out of
Bargaining Table.
2.Settlements by and large are reached by way of power politics than by application
of any rational principle
3.If collective bargaining fails strikes andlockout are immediate effect
4.National Level Bargaining retards the incentives of workers in prosperous firms
5.It may invite nationwide strikes
6.it may aggravate evil of Labour Monopoly.

Factors influencing bargaining Power

Employee
-Capacity to undergo hardship during strike
- Availability of Alternative jobs
-Financial Position of the trade union

Employer
- Availability of substitute labour
- -Market demand of goods
- Effect of closure of the company on industry and customers
Landmark Cases

1.Rangaswami v Registrar of trade union

Court held that definition of industry in Section 2(j) was wider than conception of trade or
business as commonly understood.

A mere personal service much it might have been organised would not be an undertaking
within the meaning of act .essential condition is only personal service goven to employer.

Two features of industry are that

a)that the employer and employee should be engaged in same industry

b)there should be cooperation between both of them for achieving the particular result.

There can be no industry where employer is not engaged in common with the employees.with
the definite objective of achieving needs of humanity

Whether in the circumstances of the case it can be said that persons in control of Raj Bhawan
be said to be employer in an industry ?

Answer to this is in negative they cannot be employer in an industry

2. The Tamil  Non-Gazetted Government Officer's Union is a Services Association which has
been recognised by Government, the membership of which is open, according to Rule 7 of its
constitution, to all Non-Gazetted Government Officers employed under the Government of
Madras except the Executive Officers of the Police and Prisons Department and the last grade
Government servants.The objects of this Association are  designed along the lines of
promoting the welfare of the members in multiple directions.
The Registrar rejected this application, in which, after a reference of Secs. 2(g) and 2(h) of
the Act, he held that such an Association of ministerial employees of the Administrative
Departments of offices of the Government of Madras could not claim to be a Trade Union
at all, and was not eligible for registration under the Act. 
Admittedly, against such an order declining registration, an appeal is provided for under
section 11 of the  Act,the learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J.,) rejected the petition before
him. After referring to the definition of "Trade Union" in section 2(h) of the Trade Unions
Act, the learned Judge pointed out that a vital consideration would be the content or
significance of the word "workmen" as occurring in section 2(h) and he was of the view that
this would primarily signify only manual labourers, or workers of that class. This was
one ground upon which the learned Judge ultimately concluded that civil servants of the
present Association could not be considered as workmen at all. Next, the learned Judge
pointed out that the concept of "collective bargaining", which is the rationale behind the
Trade Union movement and the existence of the Trade Unions was wholly inappropriate
when applied to Government servant.
This was all the more so in this country where the civil service was not a mere tenure at the
pleasure of the Crown, as in the United Kingdom, but where constitutional safeguards were
provided for such civil servants, as in Article 311 of the Constitution, and the terms of service
were themselves the subject of elaborate statutory rules. 
The Indian Trade Unions Act contemplated not merely collective bargaining, but also the
permeation of the Trade Union by outside influences to a certain extent (Secs. 21 and 22) and
definite participation in politics (Sec. 16). 

A strike, the acknowledged weapon of Labour Organisations, must be

considered inconceivable as a normal feature of the relationship between the State and its
civil servants, at least with regard to essential State function He stressed that those objects
were benevolent and ameliorative, and that they could not sustain the interpretation that the
association existed for "regulating the relations between workmen and employers (State)" or,
in brief, for "collective bargaining" with the State. Upon all these grounds, the petition was
dismissed.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED :-
TRADE UNION.
WORKERS.
INDUSTRY. AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
 the definition of "workmen" in section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act, -"means
all persons employed in trade or industry,but the civil services entrusted with
the implementation of the essential and sovereign functions of Government, are
not workers.the Supreme Court has approved of the dictum that those activities
of the Government which should be properly described a legal or
sovereign activities were outside the scope of "industry", "These are functions
which a constitutional Government can and must undertake for governance, and
which no private citizen can undertake" "Legal functions are inescapable,
and inalienable. Such are the legislative power, the administration of laws,
the exercise of the judicial power".The Supreme Court added-
 "It could not have been, therefore, in the contemplation of the Legislature
to bring in the legal functions of the State within the definition of "industry"
and thus confer jurisdiction on industrial courts to decide disputes in
respect thereof."The business intended by the section is a commercial business
and not a business of State or Government."

 The appellant Union purports to conclude among its members Sub

Magistrates of the Judiciary, Tahsildars entrusted with the powers of
enforcement of the tax-machinery (Revenue Recovery Act etc)., officers in
charge of Treasuries and Sub-treasures, officers of civil court
establishment, and of the Home Department of Government.
 It is impossible to contend that these are not civil servants engaged in the tasks of
the sovereign and legal aspects of Government, which are its inalienable
functions; they cannot be included within the definition of "workmen" in an
"industry" to who either section 2(g) or 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act can apply.
1. The civil servants engaged in the task of sovereign and legal
aspects of the state are not workmen
2. Independent corporations (quasi govt. agencies ) which are purely
industrial in nature are industry.
 3. certain welfare, educational and ameliorative departments , may
or may not be industry, and those departments may or may not be
industry.
4. the concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind
trade union movement is wholly inappropriate to govt servants whose
service conditions are regulated by the statute and statute cannot be
altered by contract.
5. permitting trade dispute with regard to service conditions by civil
servants will be severely against the interest of state. 
6. Civil servants cannot form trade unions because sec. 22 of trade
union Act permits permeation of outsider and section 16 allows
participation in political activities , both are not permissible to
govt  servants.

Chairman, State Bank of india v All Orissa State Bank Officers ..union
         AIR 2002 SC 2279
The rights and privileges vested in a non-recognized association are limited to espousing
the grievances of individual members relating to their service conditions and
representing them in domestic or departmental enquiries held by the employer and not
proceeding before the conciliation officer, labour court, industrial tribunal or
arbitrator. The High Court has not conceded any right to the non-recognized union to
participate in discussions relating to general issues concerning all workmen.

Forming an association is entirely independent and different form its recognition.

Recognition of a union confers rights, duties and obligations. Non- conferring of such
rights, duties and obligations on a union other than the recognized union does not put it
on an inferior position nor the charge of discrimination can be entertained. The
members of a non-recognised association can fully enjoy their fundamental freedom of
speech and expression as also to form the association.

1. BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION  

               v.   
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.
1. STATE OF MADRAS v. V.G. ROW     AIR 1952 SC 196.
2. DHARAM DUTT v. UOI      AIR 2004 SC 1295
3. T.K. RANGARAJAN v. STATE OF T.N  AIR 2003 SC 3032.
4. HARISH UPPAL v. UOI. AIR 2003 SC 739.
5. B.R SINGH v.  UNION OF INDIA  (1989)4 SCC 710.

Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union And AIR 1953 Pat 170 ..

                                              
facts :- the claim of the workers for wages and salaries for the period of the strike and the claim of the Company
for compensation for loss of production due to strike were to be submitted for arbitration of Sri J. N. Mazumdar
and Sri R. C. Mitter, former High Court Judges and Ex. Members of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, as
joint arbitrators. On the 20th April, 1959, the arbitrators gave an award and sent the same for publication to the
Government of Bihar. In this award the arbitrators decided all the issues against the trade unions and held that
compensation should be paid by the workers who had gone on strike to the Rohtas Industries Limited to the
extent of Rs. 6,90,000/- and to the Ashoka Cement Works Limited to the extent of Rs. 80,000. 
The arbitrators also decided that the cost of arbitration should be divided equally between the employers and the
trade unions concerned.

18. (1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil Court against any registered Trade
Union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some
other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or
employment of some other person with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour
as he wills."
 -
-the arbitrators have said that in their opinion the provisions regarding immunity under Section 18 are not
attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the strike was found illegal and not in
furtherance of trade dispute. It was further stated by the arbitrators that an illegal strike cannot in any event be
regarded as one "in furtherance of trade dispute". 
In my opinion the arbitrators misdirected themselves in law in holding that the workers cannot claim the
immunity under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, because the strike is illegal under Section 24 (i) of
the Industrial Disputes Act for the contravention of Section 23 (b) and Section 23 (c) of that Act. Section 23 is
to the following effect:
sec 26(1)IDACT. :- Any workman who commences, continues or otherwise acts
in furtherance of, a strike which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which
may extend to fifty rupees, or with both
."It is manifest that the question whether the strike was legal or illegal under Section 24 (1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act has no bearing on the question of immunity furnished by Section
18 of the Trade Unions Act. It is manifest in the present case that the striking workmen are
not prevented from taking recourse to the protection of Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act
mainly because the strike was illegal under Section 24 (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act
the arbitrators have not mentioned anywhere as to what these ulterior objects were. The
arbitrators have not also analysed the question as to whether the predominant purpose of the
workmen in resorting to the strike was not the furtherance of a trade dispute. .If the
predominant purpose is the lawful protection or promotion of any lawful interest of the
combiners, it is not a tortious conspiracy, even though it causes damage to another person."

 CONSPIRACY AS A TORT WOULD BECOME ACTIONABLE IF THE

REAL PURPOSE OF COMBINATION IS TO INFLICT DAMAGE
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SERVING THE BONAFIDE
PURPOSE / INTEREST OF THOSE WHO COMBINE.
 IF THE OBJECT IS TO IMPROVE WAGE PROSPECTS OF THE UNION ,
IT WILL NOT BECOME ACTIONABLE EVEN IF IT MAY EFFECT
THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYER.
  THERIGHT TO STRIKE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE
CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
 LEGALITY AND ILLEGALITY OF STRIKE HAD NO BEARING ON
THE QUESTION OF IMMUNITY UNDER SEC.18 OF TRADE
UNION ACT,1926.
 EMPLOYER HAD NO RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES AGAINST
THE EMPLOYEES, PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL STRIKE

-
-

WESTERN INDIA CINE EMPLOYEES v. Filmalya Pvt. LTd    ( 1981)II  LLJ  393.

SLOGAN SHOUTING IS PERMITTED BUT USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE TOWARDS THE

EMPLOYERS THEIR STAFF AND VISITORS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER LAWS OF THE LAND.