1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3197 OF 2008 Krantikari Kamgar Union ..Petitioner. Vs. Labour and Enforcement Officer Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Singhvi and Ms. Jane Cox for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.A. Dubey for Respondent No.2. Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for Respondent No.3. Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr. Avinash Fatangare for Respondent No.4. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.5. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 18th June, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in order to challenge an order passed by the conciliation officer declining to allow the Petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings on behalf of the workers of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Limited in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Petitioner was registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and a registration certificate dated 17th November, 2007 has been issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions 2 in the State of Maharashtra. The Fourth Respondent is a trade union by the name of Akhil Dadra and Nagar Haveli Kamgar Sangh. According to the Petitioner, the employees of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Limited (the Third Respondent) were members of the Fourth Respondent, but resigned from the union some time in November, 2007. The Petitioner submitted a charter of demands. The First Respondent who is the Labour and Enforcement Officer of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was, according to the Petitioner, declining to permit the Petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings on behalf of the workmen on the ground that the Petitioner has no locus to represent workmen outside the State of Maharashtra. The General Secretary of the Fourth Respondent is a member of Parliament. It has been alleged that on 14th February, 2008 during the course of a meeting which was called at the office of the First Respondent, the workmen were assaulted at the behest of the Fourth Respondent. In a writ petition filed by the Petitioner before this Court, an order was passed on 9th April, 2008 in terms of the statement made by the First Respondent to the effect that the question as to whether the Petitioner could represent the workers in the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the charter of demands submitted by the Petitioner to the Fourth Respondent 3 would be decided by the First Respondent. The Petition was accordingly disposed of. Thereupon by the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008 the First Respondent held that the Petitioner is not entitled to participate in the conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to the workmen of the Third Respondent. 2. In passing the impugned order, the First Respondent has come to the conclusion that the Trade Unions Act, 1926 forms a complete code pertaining to the registration of trade unions and, if a union registered in one State desires to operate in another State, its objects must specifically provide that the union would operate in more than one State. The First Respondent has held that the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Mumbai to the Petitioner was under the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations 1927 and not under the Central Trade Unions Regulations 1938. The First Respondent held that the objects of the Petitioner are confined to the State of Maharashtra only. The First Respondent has relied upon certain documents which were produced in pursuance of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to hold that the Petitioner is 4 registered only for the State of Maharashtra and is not registered as a union operating in more than one State. 2A. On behalf of the Petitioner reliance has been placed on the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and it has been urged that under Section 2, the expression “appropriate government” means in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State, the Central Government and in relation to other trade unions, the State Government. Hence, it was submitted that unless the objects clause of a trade union contain a restriction confining a union to one State, it would be the Central Government which would be the appropriate government. Reliance has also been placed on diverse notifications issued under the Government of India Act 1935, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Article 258 of the Constitution of India. The effect thereof, it is urged that the functions of the Central Government under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 have been entrusted to the State Government in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State and whose head office is situated in a particular State. In fact, it was urged that as a consequence the then Government of Bombay appointed the Registrar of Trade Unions for the State of Bombay to be the Registrar of Trade Unions also 5 in relation to those unions whose objects were not confined to and whose head office is situated in the then State of Bombay. In the present case, it was submitted that ex facie, the objects of the union are not confined to the State of Maharashtra and therefore there was nothing to preclude the union from participating in the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the workmen of the Third Respondent in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Finally, the attention of the Court was also drawn to the fact that on 19th May, 2008 a communication has been addressed to the Registrar of Trade Unions of a formal amendment having been made to the constitution of the Petitioner in pursuance of a general meeting of the union held on 12th May, 2008 specifically incorporating the provision that the activities of the union would extend all over the territory of India. 3. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent submitted that the Fourth Respondent is an established trade union and that in pursuance of the conciliation proceedings which took place before the First Respondent an industrial settlement was arrived at under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of the Fourth Respondent 6 it was urged that the definition of the expression “appropriate government” must be read to mean that unless a specific provision is made in the objects clause of the constitution of a trade union to the effect that the objects of the union would extend to more than one State, it is only the State Government which would be the appropriate government. Consequently, in the present case it was submitted that it was the State Government which was the appropriate government and that the Petitioner had no locus to participate in the conciliation proceedings in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Reliance was placed on the documents which were revealed in the course of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. These documents pertain to the report of the Scrutiny Officer who conducted a scrutiny when the Petitioner had made an application for registration. The report of the Scrutiny Officer which was signed by the members of the Petitioner inter alia indicated that the union is a union of workers working in various industries in Maharashtra. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would at the outset be necessary to make a reference to the relevant provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The expression 7 “appropriate government” has been defined to mean, for the purpose of the Act “in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State, the Central Government and in relation to other trade unions, the State Government”. Section 2(f) defines the expression “registrar” to mean a registrar of trade unions appointed by the appropriate government under Section 3 and in relation to any trade union the registrar appointed for the State in which the head or the registered office, as the case may be, of the trade union is situated. On 4th July, 1941 a notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Act by which the Central Government directed that the Central Trade Union Regulations, 1938 shall be cancelled with effect from 31st March, 1941. After the promulgation of the Constitution a notification was issued on 26th February, 1952 by the President in exercise of powers conferred by Article 258(1) of the Constitution entrusting to the Government of each Part-A State and each Part B State ( save and except for those which were excepted) the functions of the Central Government under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to and whose head office is situated in that State. By a further notification of 26th May, 1952 the Government of Bombay appointed the 8 Registrar of Trade Unions for the State of Bombay to be the Registrar of Trade Unions also in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to and whose head office is situated in the State of Bombay. These notifications indicate that in regard to those trade unions whose objects are not confined to a particular State but whose head office is situated in a State, the functions of the Central Government under the Trade Unions Act have been delegated to the State Government concerned. In relation to the State of Maharashtra, the Registrar of Trade Unions for the State is vested with the requisite statutory authority in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State but whose head offices are situated in the State of Maharashtra. 5. The crux of the matter essentially revolves around the expression “whose objects are not confined to one State” in the definition of the expression “appropriate government” in Section 2 of the Act. As already noted earlier, this terminology is adopted both in the notification issued by the President on 26th February, 1952 under Article 258 of the Constitution and the gazette notification of the then State of Bombay. At this stage, it would need to be emphasised that the words which have been used by 9 the legislature are “whose objects are not confined to one State”. In the case of such trade unions it is the Central Government which is the appropriate government. In relation to all other trade unions, there is a residuary provision under which the appropriate government is the State Government. Parliament, it may be noted, has not used the expression “whose objects extend to more than one State”. Instead of using a positive requirement that the objects of a union should extend to more than one State, Parliament has used a negative form of a phrase to the effect that the object of trade union should not be confined to one State. There are two ways in which the issues which arise in the present case can be looked at. The first is a matter of statutory interpretation while the second would turn on the facts of the present case. As a matter of statutory interpretation it is the Central Government which is the appropriate government where the objects of the trade union are not confined to one State. In other words, it is only where the objects of a trade union are confined to one State that the appropriate government would not be the Central Government, but the State Government. 6. In the present case the constitution of the Petitioner 10 contains no specific provision confining the objects of the union to the State of Maharashtra. On the contrary, there is intrinsic evidence to indicate that the operation of the union was not intended to be confined to the State of Maharashtra alone. The objects of the Petitioner have been set out in Clause 2 of the Constitution. Sub clause (a) thereof is to the following effect : “2. The object of the Union shall be (a) to organise and unite the workers employed, in the list of industries and sectors set out in Annex 'A' and as decided upon from time to time by the Executive Committee and the district Committee of the Union.” 7. Clause 3 provides that any person employed in any branch of industry or service sector, shall be entitled to become an ordinary member of the union on payment of an admission subscription. Under clause 11 the affairs of the union are to be conducted by an Executive Committee. Clause 14 provides that the Executive Committee is empowered to authorize the setting up of a State, district or regional committee. Several sub clauses of Clause 14 clearly contemplate that there can be State committees for the Petitioner extending to diverse States within the territory of India. In fact, Clause 15 makes it even more clear by providing 11 that in order to facilitate the efficient and participative functioning of the union, State / district / regional committees are to be constituted which demarcate units of the union based on company wise membership or geographical sectors. The First Respondent has relied upon the provisions of Clause 24 under which the office bearers have been empowered to represent the union throughout the state including for filing of cases and in the matter of strikes and settlements. The provisions of Clause 24 cannot be read in isolation and would have to be harmoniously construed with all the relevant provisions of the Constitution particularly the objects underlying the formation of the union. But above all, as a matter of statutory interpretation it is abundantly clear that where the objects of a union are not confined to one State it is the Central Government which would have jurisdiction as the appropriate government. 8. The First Respondent in holding that the Petitioner had no locus to enter into the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the Third Respondent is manifestly in error. The First Respondent has held that if a union wishes to operate in more than one State, it must specifically so provide in its rules and must get itself 12 registered under the Central Trade Union Regulations 1938 with the Registrar of Trade Unions appointed by the Central Government. The finding by the First Respondent that the objects must contain a specific provision allowing the union to operate in more than one State in order that the Central Government be the appropriate government would run contrary to the plain intendment of the definition of the expression 'appropriate government' in Section 2 of the Act. The First Respondent held that the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Mumbai was under the Bombay Regulations and not under the Central Government Regulations of 1938. This part of the reasoning is again fallacious for the reason that as has already been noted above, the President of India has by a notification dated 26th February, 1952 delegated the functions of the Central Government under the Act in relation to those trade unions whose objects are not confined to and whose head offices are not situated in a State to the State Government. The State Government had thereupon appointed the Registrar of Trade Unions for this State to be the Registrar in relation to such unions. Reliance was also placed by the First Respondent upon a report of the Scrutinizing Officer during the course of the application filed by 13 the Petitioner for registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. During the course of the scrutiny, the concerned officer noted that the Petitioner is a union of workers working in various industries in Maharashtra. The fact that the aforesaid statement was signed by the office bearers of the Petitioner cannot, however, operate as an estoppel in law. Unless there is a specific statutory bar precluding the Petitioner, it would be impermissible to place any such prohibition on the basis of a statement contained in the report of a scrutinizing officer. Finally, it may also be necessary to note that on 13th May, 2008 a communication was addressed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Konkan Division, Mumbai to the Petitioner stating that it was appropriate that the Petitioner carried out an amendment to its objects clause defining the area of its operation. The letter further clarified that in pursuance of the notification issued by the State Government on 26th May, 1952 a trade union whose area of operation was the entire country, but which had its registered office in Mumbai would have to be registered by the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions at Mumbai in pursuance of an authority conferred in that behalf. Consequently, the Petitioner was informed that since it had already been registered with the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Mumbai, there was no 14 occasion to apply for another set of registrations. On 19th May, 2008 the Petitioner has also informed the Registrar of Trade Unions that a general meeting of the union was held on 12th May, 2008 in pursuance of which a specific amendment has been brought about in the objects clause clarifying that the area of operation of the union shall extend to the entire territory of India. 9. In these circumstances, the First Respondent was manifestly in error in declining to allow the Petitioner to participate in the conciliation proceedings. The impugned order dated 22nd April, 2008 is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. In the meantime, it has been stated in the affidavit filed by the Fourth Respondent that a settlement was entered into in the course of conciliation between the Third and Fourth Respondents. Since the legality and validity of the settlement does not form the subject matter of these proceedings, it is not necessary for the Court to make any observation thereof, save and except to clarify that the Petitioner would be at liberty to espouse such remedies as are available in law. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the 15 circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. No stay. *****