Vishva Kalyan Kamgar Sangthan and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
industrial disputes act, 1947 - sub-clause (3) of section 6-i - comparative citation: 2013 lab ic(noc) 177sudhanshu dhulia, j. (oral) 1. heard mr. m. c. pant, advocate assisted by mr. d. s. mehta, advocate for the petitioners, mr. b. s. adhikari, advocate for the respondent no.7/bajaj auto ltd. and mr. n. p. sah, standing counsel for the state of uttarakhand. 2. the petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union at pune, maharashtra for the automobile trade, whereas the petitioner no.2 is not a registered trade union. it seeks to espouse the cause of workers of bajaj auto ltd., pantnagar / respondent no.7. it further claims that since many of the workers of bajaj auto ltd. are its members, it can espouse the cause of the workers in the capacity of a registered trade union. 3. on the last occasion, mr. s. n. babulkar, senior advocate and earlier mr. j. p. cama, advocate for the respondent no.7 appeared in the court and had inter-alia submitted that only a trade union registered in the state of uttarakhand can espouse the cause of the workers. the principal argument was that the petitioners before this court are not registered trade union in uttarakhand, but, the petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union at pune, therefore, there is a specific bar under sub-clause (3) of section 6-i of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act), which reads as under:- 6-i. representation of the parties. – (1) …………… (2)……………. (3) no officer of a union shall be entitled to represent any party unless a period of two years has elapsed since its registration under the indian trade unions act, 1926, and the union has been registered for one trade only: provided that an officer of a federation of unions may subject to such conditions as maybe prescribed represent any party.” 4. the argument of the employer is that the unregistered trade union cannot represent the workers and a trade union which is registered outside the state cannot represent the workers of bajaj auto ltd in uttarakhand. during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the employer submitted that the employer had already reached an agreement with some of the workers of bajaj auto respondent no.7 and since there is still no registered trade union in the factory, this step has been taken under rule 5 of the industrial disputes act. it has been argued that the settlement arrived at between the parties has been sent to the state government under section 5-b(3) of the act and presently it is pending consideration. this aspect has been challenged by the petitioners and mr. m. c. pant, learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that the agreement is a mere sham and it is no settlement in the eyes of law as the petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union and only the petitioners can espouse the cause of workers of bajaj auto ltd. in uttarakhand as there is no other registered trade union. 5. now, the fact remains that the petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union at pune, maharashtra, although, the petitioners contend that even if it is a registered trade union at pune it can espouse the cause of the workers of uttarakhand and there is no such bar. moreover nothing has been placed by the employer before this court to show what bar exists for a trade union which is registered at pune to espouse the cause of workers of uttarakhand. 6. learned counsel for the respondents argued that the bye-laws of the registered union states that the union of india will have only one president and one secretary and there is no provision of delegating its powers to any one or creating of units. be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of arguments, that the petitioners cannot espouse the cause of workers of bajaj auto ltd., the fact remains that the workers of a factory cannot remain unrepresented and if they have a grievance or dispute, it must be settled and sincere efforts must be made to settle the dispute amicably. learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn an attention of the court to section 3 of the act, which reads as under:- “3. power to prevent strikes, lock-outs, etc. – if, in the opinion of the state government it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision – (a) for prohibiting, subject to the provisions of the order, strikes or lock-outs generally, or a strike or lock-out in connection with any industrial dispute; (b) for requiring employers, workmen or both to observe for such period, as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment as may be determined in accordance with the order; (c) for appointing industrial courts; (d) for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order ; (e) for requiring any public utility service, or any subsidiary undertaking not to close or remain closed and to work or continue to work, on such conditions as may be specified in the order; (f) for exercising control over any public utility service, or any subsidiary undertaking by authorising any person (hereinafter referred to as an authorised controller) to exercise, with respect to such service, undertaking or part thereof such functions of control as may be specified in the order; and, on the making of such order the service undertaking or part, as the case may be shall so long, as the order continues, be carried on in accordance with any directions given by the authorised controller in accordance with the provisions of the order; and every person having any functions of management of such service, undertaking or part thereof shall comply with such directions; (g) for any incidental or supplementary matters, which appear to the provincial government necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order; provided that no order made under clause (b)- (i) shall require an employer to observe terms and conditions of employment less favourable to the workmen than those which were applicable to them at any time within three months preceding the date of the order ” 7. section 3 of the act gives wide powers to the government to appoint committees which will have representatives of the employer and the workers in order to secure amity and good relations between the employer and the employees of the factory and in order to settle the dispute by a conciliation. there has been a categorical assertion of the petitioners that the assistant labour commissioner and the conciliation officer has refused to hear the petitioners as according to them it is not a registered trade union and if it is a union registered outside the state of uttarakhand, it cannot espouse the cause of the workers. 8. in view of the fact that since some kind of settlement has been arrived at between the employer and some of the workers and it has been sent to the state government, it would also be befitting, and in the interest of justice that the petitioners must be allowed to make a representation before the secretary, government of uttarakhand, who shall hear the petitioners as well as the employer and such workers on whose behalf a settlement has been arrived at. the secretary will take a decision by a reasoned and speaking order. if the secretary comes to a conclusion that a dispute between the parties can be settled amicably, he may pass order to that effect. however, if he comes to the conclusion that no conciliation can be made, he would pass orders to that effect as well, taking consequential proceedings in the matter. 9. it is made clear that before hearing to the petitioners, the secretary should ascertain their bonafide that such workers are actually working in bajaj auto ltd. needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but, definitely within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. no order as to costs.