ivil Appeal No 1824 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 1451990 of the Orissa High Court in OJC No 4426 of 1989
401 Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant
Gobind Das SB Upadhyay Harish Salve Ms Kirti Misra and SR Grover for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
Leave granted
The only question which falls for consideration in the present case is what is the meaning of Implementation Machinery within the meaning of the Code of Discipline hereinafter referred to as the Code ratified by all Central Employers  and Workers  Organisations at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May 1958 and which came into force from June 1 1958
The question assumes importance in the present case because the High Court by the impugned decision has held that since the appellant Union had addressed its application for recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implementation Officer the same was not properly made and the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition
The admitted facts are that the appellant Rourkela Sramik Sangh had addressed a letter on October 9 1989 to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer cum Labour Comissionner Orissa Cuttack intimating him that as per the Code it had called upon the Rourkela Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent in the Plant but that the Plant had not replied to the same
The appellant in the said letter had further requested the Labour Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the said Plant and to recommend for recognition the Union having majority of the membership
On receipt of this request the Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer authorised the Deputy Labour Commissioner on December 5 1989 to carry out the process of verification of the membership of the registered trade unions
In pursuance of the same the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order on December 14 1989 calling upon the different trade unions to produce the necessary records within 10 days of the receipt of the notice
These orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were challenged by the Ist respondent Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha which is a rival union in the Plant by way of a Writ Petition being OJC No 4426 of 1989 in the High Court of Orissa
At the same time the appellant 402 Union filed a Writ Petition being OJC No 361 of 1990 seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the verification of the membership of the Unions and to fix a time limit to complete the process and recognition and for ancillary reliefs
Both the writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and by its impuged common judgment the Court was pleased to allow the Ist respondent s petition and dismiss the appellant s petition
The decision of the Court was based only on the finding that the Implementation and Evaluation Officer was not the Implementation Machinery under the Code and the Implementation Officer had no authority to process the application for recognition
The relevant provisions of the Code are as follows Section II of the Code deals with Implementation Machinery and is headed as such
It begins as follows 2
To implement the Code of Discipline labour enactments awards and agreements a separate machinery has been set up at the Centre and in all States
This machinery comprises a implementation units in Labour Departments and b tripartite implementation committees at the Central State and local levels
 Thereafter it proceeds to deal with Implementation Units and states as follows i Implementation Units 3
A Central Implementation and Evaluation Division has been set up in the Ministry of Labour and Employment under the charge of a Joint Secretary
In the State also Implementation Units have been set up under the charge of either a whole time officer of the Labour Department or of the State Labour Commissioners
According to the recommendations of the Labour Ministers  Conference held in January 1960 the Implementation Officer in each State should as far as possible he whole time and of sufficient seniority
The following functions have been assigned to 403 Implementation Units 1 to ensure Implementation of the Code of Discipline Code of Conduct labour enactments awards agreements etc with a view to reducing at the source the main cause of industrial strife 2 to supplement the work of the Industrial Relations Machinery in taking preventive action where disputes are brewing and in settling long pending disputes which could not be settled otherwise 3 to maintain liaison with Central State or local units as the case may be to ensure effective working of the implementation machinery 4 to arrange meetings of Implementation Committees and to function as their Secretariat 5 to bring about out of court settlement of cases pending in High Courts and the Supreme Court 6 to ensure that cases are screened by the Screening Committees set up by the Central Employers  and Workers  Organisations before appeals are filed in higher courts 7 to evaluate a major strikes lock outs and disputes in order to fix responsibility for them and b the working of important Labour legislations awards policies decisions etc
in order to see how far they have produced the results which they were intended to produce and suggest measures to improve them
8 to collect and maintain necessary statistics regarding implementation of the Code of Discipline labour enactments awards etc
X X X X X X X X X X X It then deals with Implementation Committees and states as follows 404 iii Implementation Committees 6
The Implementation Committees at the Centre and in the States represent both Central Employers  and Workers  Organisations
The Central Implementation and Evaluation Committee consists of an equal number of employers  and workers  representatives four each from the Central employers  Organisations
They are nominated by the organisations to which they belong and not by Government 
StateAdministration Implementation Committees are also required to be constituted in consultation with the Central Employers  and Workers  Organisations wherever they have affiliates in the StatesTerritories concerned
These Committees are presided over as far as possible by respective Labour Ministers
At the local level the Committees comprise an equal number of representatives of employers and workers in the area and are presided over by an officer of the Labour Department of by a prominent person in the region
The functions assigned to Implementation Committees by the Standing Labour Committee in October 1957 and other Committees are as follows 1 to examine the extent of implementation of agreements awards and settlements and to advise the parties which are anxious to implement an award but are unable to do so as to how the difficulties in implementation could be overcome
2 to fix responsibility for violations of the Code in cases brought to its notice by the Implementation Unit or in those enquired into by it or a sub committee appointed by it
In doing so the Committee may hear the parties concerned if considered necessary
3 To consider cases for out of court settlement with the consent of the parties screening of cases of industrial disputes before appeals are filed etc
that may be brought to its notice by the Implementation Unit or such other cases that the Committee may desire to bring about harmonious labour management relations
405 4 to review periodically the working of the Code in their respective spheres
5 to maintain a two way exchange of experience between the Committees at the lowest level and the Central Committee
At points of importance arising at any level should be given wide circulation
 The Code further assigns the Implementation Units among others the duty to provide the secretariat for the Implementation Committees and to ensure that their decisions are implemented promptly
We have also seen from the enumeration of the functions of the Implementation Units above that the Units have to arrange meetings of the Implementation Committees and to function as their secretariat
Section IV of the Code provides for Grievance Procedure
It states among other things that it is the responsibility of the Central and StateAdministration Implementation Units to ensure that a grievance procedure is set up by every management in consultation with their workers
Section V of the Code deals with Recognition of Unions and states as follows 11
Except in those States where the procedure to conferrecognition on unions is governed by a statute the conditions and procedure for recognitions of unions are governed by the provisions of the Code of Discipline
It is the responsibility of Implementation Units to ensure that recognition is granted to unions by managements wherever they satisfy the prescribed criteria
The procedure to be followed for this purpose is at Appendix IV
For the sake of uniformity the State Implementation Units are requested to adopt it Appendix IV which is referred to above is headed as follows PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF UNIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNITION UNDER THE CODE OF DISCIPLINE It is not necessary to set out the entire procedure stated in the said Appendix
A reference to only first who clauses and clause 10 of the 406 said procedure would suffice for our purpose
They state follows 1 On receipt of a representation from a union for recognition under the Code of Discipline the CentralState Implementation Machinery will first ascertain a the names of unions functioning in the establishment together with their number and date of registration by reference to the Registrar of Trade Unions concerned b whether any of the unions functioning in the establishment was responsible for an established breach of the Code during the past one year
By an established breach of the Code  is meant a breach reported to and on enquiry established by the Implementation Machinery of the State or the Centre c whether the existing recognised union if any has completed a period of two years of recognition
2 After ascertaining the above facts the Implementation Machinery at the Centre will request the Chief Labour Commissioner to arrange verification of membership of unions entitled to recognition under the Code
In the States either the Implementation Officer will carry out this verification or get it done through the State Labour Commissioner depending on the practice in each State
X X X X X X X X X X 10 The verification officer will report his findings to the CentralState Implementation machinery which in turn will communicate its decision to the management as well as to the unions
In his report the verification officer will also indicate the total numbers of workers in the establishment and the percentage of the verified membership to it
 We may also mention in this context that Annexure I to the Code lays down a criteria for recognition on unions
It will thus be apparent from the aforesaid provisions of the Code that the Implementation Machinery envisaged by the Code consists of two separate Organisations viz Implementation Units in 407 the respective Labour Departments and Tripartite Implementation Committees at the Central State and local levels
Each of the Organisations has been assigned different functions and they are independent of each other while carrying out the same
While the Central Implementation and Evaluation Division is set up in the Ministry of Labour and Employment under the charge of a Joint Secretary the Implementation Units in the States are set up under the charge of a whole time officer of the Labour Department
It is recommended that the Implementation Officer should be a whole time officer and of sufficient seniority as far as possible
The Implementation Units have among other things been entrusted with the task of ensuring that every management sets up a grievance procedure in consultation with their workers and ensuring that recognition is granted to Unions by management wherever they satisfy the prescribed criteria by following the procedure laid down for the purpose in Apendix IV
We have already pointed out that the prescribed criteria is laid down in annexure I of the Code
Further pre conditions for recognition are laid down in clause 1 of Appendix IV
Thus the constitutions of the Implementation Units and Implementation Committees are different and they function in different areas
It appears that the High Court has basically been swayed by the fact that in clause 1 of the Appendix IV it is stated that on the receipt of the representation from unions for recognition the CentralState Implementation Machinery will first ascertain the facts stated in sub clauses a b and c thereof and thereafter if at the Centre the Implementation Machinery will require the Chief Labour Commissioner to arrange the verification of membership of unions entitled to recognition and if in the States either the Implementation Officer will carry out the verification or get it done through the State Labour Commissioner depending upon the practice obtaining in each State
The High Court also seems to have been influenced by the provisions of clause 10 of the said Appendix which requires the Verification Officer to report his findings on membership to the CentreState Implementation Machinery
The High Court has obviously mistaken the whole for the part
As we have pointed out earlier although Section II of the Code is headed Implementation Machinery the Implementation Machinery consists of two separate Organisations viz Implementation Units and Tripartite Implementation Committees
This is obvious from the language of Section II itself
Their separate constitutions and functions also make this aspect clear
What is further to hold that the Implementation Unit in the respective Labour Department together with the respective Tripartite Implemen 408 tation Committee at the Central State or Local Level would constitute the Implementation Machinery jointly and not each of them separately would run not only counter to the intention of the Code as is manifest from the clear language of Section II and their separate composition and functions but would also be impracticable in working
We have reproduced above the composition of the Implementation Committees at the Centre and the State Level
These Committees consist of at the central level an equal number of employers  and workers  representation four each from the central Employers  and Workers  Organisations as nominated by the Organisations themselves
At the State level they are required to be constituted similarly and in consultation with the Central Employers  and Workers  Organisations wherever they have affiliates in the State concerned
The Committees are further presided over as far as possible by respective Labour Ministers and even where it is not possible for Labour Minister to preside over them they have to associate themselves as much as possible with the deliberation of the Committees
At the local level the Committees are similarly constituted of an equal number of representatives of the employers  and Workers  in the area and are presided over by an Officer of the Labour Department or by a prominent person in the region
In a given case there may be more associations than one of employers and employees and the Committees would thus consist of an unwieldy number
To except such a Committee to carry out the work mentioned in Appendix IV is unrealistic
That is why the Code itself has entrusted to the Implementation Units and not to the Implementation Committees the task of ensuring that recognition is granted to unions by management
At the Centre the Implementation Unit is kept in charge of a Joint Secretary and at the State level it is in charge of a whole time officer of the State Labour Department
The record further shows that as early as on May 26 1959 ie after about a year of the ratification of the Code the Government of India issued a statement naming and designating Officers Incharge of Evaluation and Implementation work in all the States and further stated as follows 
It is requested that all complaints of non implementation of Labour Laws awards settlements agreements Code of Discipline etc relating to undertakings in the State sphere may kindly be referred in future to State Implementation Officers concerned  
 So far as the State of Orissa is concerned the Implementation 409 Officer named by the Government of India is the Labour Commissioner of the State
Since the Implementation UnitImplementation Officer entrusted with the task of granting recognition to the Unions in the State of Orissa was the Labour Commissioner of the State the appellant Sangh had rightly approached the Labour Commissioner for the purpose
The High Court having committed the basic error of confusing the Implementation unit and Tripartite Implementation Committee together with the Implementation Machinery was misled into holding that the Implementation UnitImplementation Officer was not the proper authority to initiate the procedure for recognition
The High Court was further wrong in holding that clause 10 of Appendix IV which mentions that the Verification Office will report his findings to the Implementation Machinery conveyed the meaning that the Implementation Unit or the Labour Commissioner was not the Implementation Machinery but only a Verification Officer
Since the State Labour Commissioner was named as the Implementation Officer who is none but the officer in charge of the Implementation Unit the State Labour Commissioner as the Implementation Officer had an option either to carry out the verification of membership himself or entrust it to some other Officer like the Deputy Labour Commissioner as in the present case
That was only an entrustment of a ministerial work
The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present case is the Verification Officer and under clause 10 of Appendix IV he has to send his report to the Implementation Officer or Unit ie the State Labour Commissioner and the State Labour Commissioner will in turn communicate his decision as the State Implementation Machinery to the management as well as the Unions
For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the High Court has erred in allowing Writ Petition No 4426 of 1989 filed by the Ist respondent and dismissing the appllant s Writ Petition being No 361 of 1990
We therefore set aside the decision of the High Court and direct the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the process of verification of membership and the Labour Commissioner to complete the proceedings of recognition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the receipt of this decision
In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs
RSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioner an unsuccessful applicant for registration as an exporter and licensee for exporting coir products challenged the vires of the rr 18 19 201a 21 and 22a made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 261 of the 45 Of 1953
The Act had for its object the regulation and control of the Coir industry in public interest
It was contended on his behalf that the impugned rules which prescribed the quantitative and not the qualitative test for registration of established exporters were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and as such ultra vires the Act and that they tended to create a monopoly in the export trade of coir commodities and thereby destroy the business of small dealers and discriminated between those who carried on large scale business and those who carried on small scale business and thus impugned articles 19 and 14 Of the Constitution
Held that the contentions were without substance and must be negatived
There was no provision in the  that excluded or prohibited the application of the quantitative test and the rules were in no way inconsistent with the Act nor in excess of the powers conferred on the Central Government by section 26 of the Act
Where an Act sought to control an industry in public interest it would obviously be for the rule making authority to decide which rules and regulations would meet the requirement of public interest
Such rules and regulations though reasonable within the meaning of article 196 might cause hardship to those who failed to comply with them
But once it was conceded that the regulation and control of the trade were justified in public interest article 191g could not be invoked to challenge the validity of the rules
Nor did the impugned rules violate article 14 Of the Constitu tion
The classification of traders under rr
18 and 19 was clearly founded on an intelligible differentia that had a rational relation to the object of the Act
The exemption made by the rules in favour of co operative societies from some of the relevant tests indicated that the Legislature intended to encourage small 780 traders
It was not therefore correct to say that the rules would lead to a monopoly in the trade