C.R. No.1699 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1699 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2009 Faridabad Kamgar Union .......Petitioner Versus New Allenberry Works Employees Union and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The suit had been filed for an injunction restraining 2nd defendant from recognizing the 1st defendant Union by the plaintiff that claimed itself to be the only recognized union of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff to be a recognized union, while the 1st defendant contended in defence that the plaintiff was an unregistered union and it did not have the competence to file the suit. The suit came to instituted at a time when the 1st defendant was purporting to make a demand on behalf of the workmen to the management and it was the contention of the 1st defendant that the suit had been filed in collusion by the plaintiff with the second defendant. 2. Adverting to the maintainability of the civil suit, the trial Court and the Appellate Court made reference to Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act that grants immunity to a trade union against C.R. No.1699 of 2004 (O&M) -2- institution of civil suit questioning activities of the trade union and observed that the question whether a particular union had a competency to represent the workers was not ousted by the said provision and the civil suit was perfectly maintainable. Both the Courts referred to the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant admitting the plaintiff's status as a recognized union to uphold the claim of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant shall not to be recognized during the pendency of the suit. 3. At the outset, it is contended that the plaintiff's union is an unregistered trade union and it did not have the legal competence to institute the suit and for the same reason, the interim application ought to also fail. He relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. An Orissa State Bank Officers Assocn. and others AIR 2002 SC 2279 that an un-recognized union shall have no right to participate in discussions relating to general issues concerning all workmen but it can meet and discuss with management/employer about grievance of any individual member to his service conditions. This decision does not refer to the competence of an unregistered union to file the suit but merely states that even an unrecognized union could espouse the cause of individual workman without insisting on a right to participate in discussion relating to general issues concerning all workmen. This decision will have no application and if at all, it could be used only to state that even if the 1st defendant union had not been recognized by the management, it could still urge the demands of any individual workman to the management. This has a bearing in view of the C.R. No.1699 of 2004 (O&M) -3- contention raised by the 1st defendant that the suit itself came to be instituted only when some of the demands of the workmen were sought to be espoused by the defendant-union and that was sought to be thwarted by the institution of the plaintiff suit in collusion with defendant. 4. In my view, the decisions of the Courts below suffer from an inherent mistake in approach in consideration of the statement acknowledging the plaintiff's recognized status as enabling it to obtain an injunction that any other union shall not be recognized. Such a kind of right, the plaintiff cannot have even if it is a recognized union. It is the prerogative of the 2nd defendant to recognize or derecognize the union depending on the representative character of a particular union and any party aggrieved would have appropriate remedies under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the Trade Unions Act. The right of the 1st defendant to obtain the recognition by the 2nd defendant will be matters that would fall for adjudication only in a dispute inter se between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff is not entitled to join issues in such a matter. Even otherwise, if it assumed that the plaintiff can prevent any one union from approaching the management and seek for its recognition, it should be remembered that the plaintiff was not asking for any relief that the 1st defendant shall not make any representation on behalf of the workmen to the management nor could the order of injunction be understood as such. It is a hands-off approach that would be solutary in this case and the relief of injunction granted by the Courts below is clearly erroneous and overstepping its limits. The order of injunction granted by the C.R. No.1699 of 2004 (O&M) -4- Courts below are vacated and the civil revision is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12, 2009 Pankaj*