Case: Shramik Utkarsha Sabha Vs. Raymond Woolen Mills

1993(2) SCT 268 (SC) : 1993(2) SCC 115, the question was whether a delinquent was entitled to be represented by an officer bearer of another trade union who was not a member of either the recognised union or an un-recognised union functioning within the undertaking in which the delinquent was employed. This court held that the Act was enacted to provide for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings; to confer certain powers on un-recognised unions; to define and provide for the prevention of certain unfair labour practices; and to constitute courts for carrying out the purpose of according recognition to trade unions and for enforcing the provisions relating to unfair labour practices. It was made applicable to industries to which the B.I.R. Act applied. It was clear from the scheme of the Act that, with a view to facilitating collective bargaining in certain undertakings, the concept of recognisition of unions was introduced and certain obligations and rights came to be imposed and conferred on recognised unions. 11. Mr. Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the B.I.R. Act and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act operated in different fields. The former did not deal with the subject of unfair labour practices, which was dealt with by the latter. Since the object of the latter was to prevent unfair labour practices, it allowed access to courts to any union, recognised, representative or otherwise, to any employee and even to a labour officer to ensure that an unfair labour practice was prevented. Since an un-recognised union could file a complaint, there was nothing incongruous about it being heard as a respondent. Section 21 was emphasised, and it was submitted that exclusivity was conferred only in regard to items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and an un-recognised union could appear in complaints in respect of all other unfair labour practices. Having regard to the provisions of Section 29 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, whereby any order passed would be binding on the appellant and its members, they had a right to be heard by the Industrial Court before any order could be made against them.12. Mr. A.H. Desai, learned counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the right of a representative union to represent the employees in an industry to which the B.I.R. Act applied remained unfettered and did not change by reason of the fact that the proceedings had been adopted under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Learned counsel for the second respondent adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the first respondent. 13. The M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act takes note of the provisions of the B.I.R. Act. Many of its definitions are stated to be those contained in the B.I.R. Act. Chapter III, which deals with the recognition of unions, states, in section 10(2), that its provisions do not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the B.I.R. Act apply. The B.I.R. Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of the relation of employers and employees in certain matters and to consolidate and amend the law in relation to the settlement of industrial disputes. The M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act was enacted to provide for the recognisition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings to state their rights and obligations; to confer certain powers on un-recognised unions; and to define and provide for the prevention of unfair labour practices; and to constitute courts in this behalf. It cannot, therefore be said that the B.I.R.Act and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act operate in different fields. There is commonality in their objects and their provisions. The obvious intent of the legislature which enacted them was that they should operate in tandem and complement each other in respect of industries to which the B.I.R. Act had been made applicable. The two statutes must be read together.14. Section 21 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, upon the emphasis was laid on behalf to the appellants, states that no employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act applies shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to the unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised union. It is important to note that the reference is to employee in an undertaking to which the Industrial Disputes Act applies and not to employees in an undertaking to which the B.I.R. Act applies. Apart therefrom, the section permits an employee, not an union other than the recognised union, to so appear. The provisions of section 21 do not, therefore, lead to the conclusion that an union other than a representative union can appear in proceedings relating to all unfair labour practices other than those specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV.15. It is true that an order of the Industrial Court in the concerned proceedings would bind all employees of the first respondent even though there may be some among them who owe allegiance not the representative union but to the appellant. The objective of the provisions of the B.I.R. Act and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, read together, and the embargo placed upon representation by anyone other than the representative of the employees, who, for the most part, is the representative union, except in matters pertaining to an individual dispute between an employ and the employer, is to facilitate collective bargaining. The rationale is that it is in the interest of industrial peace and in the public and national interest that the employer should have to deal, in matters which concern all or most of its employees, only with a union which is representative of them. It may be that a union which was representative of the employees may have in the course of time lost that representative character; it is then open, under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act, for a rival union to seek to replace it.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. The M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act takes note of the provisions of the B.I.R. Act. Many of its definitions are stated to be those contained in the B.I.R. Act. Chapter III, which deals with the recognition of unions, states, in section 10(2), that its provisions do not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the B.I.R. Act apply. The B.I.R. Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of the relation of employers and employees in certain matters and to consolidate and amend the law in relation to the settlement of industrial disputes. The M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act was enacted to provide for the recognisition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings to state their rights and obligations; to confer certain powers onunions; and to define and provide for the prevention of unfair labour practices; and to constitute courts in this behalf. It cannot, therefore be said that the B.I.R.Act and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act operate in different fields. There is commonality in their objects and their provisions. The obvious intent of the legislature which enacted them was that they should operate in tandem and complement each other in respect of industries to which the B.I.R. Act had been made applicable. The two statutes must be read together.14. Section 21 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, upon the emphasis was laid on behalf to the appellants, states that no employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act applies shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to the unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised union. It is important to note that the reference is to employee in an undertaking to which the Industrial Disputes Act applies and not to employees in an undertaking to which the B.I.R. Act applies. Apart therefrom, the section permits an employee, not an union other than the recognised union, to so appear. The provisions of section 21 do not, therefore, lead to the conclusion that an union other than a representative union can appear in proceedings relating to all unfair labour practices other than those specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV.15. It is true that an order of the Industrial Court in the concerned proceedings would bind all employees of the first respondent even though there may be some among them who owe allegiance not the representative union but to the appellant. The objective of the provisions of the B.I.R. Act and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, read together, and the embargo placed upon representation by anyone other than the representative of the employees, who, for the most part, is the representative union, except in matters pertaining to an individual dispute between an employ and the employer, is to facilitate collective bargaining. The rationale is that it is in the interest of industrial peace and in the public and national interest that the employer should have to deal, in matters which concern all or most of its employees, only with a union which is representative of them. It may be that a union which was representative of the employees may have in the course of time lost that representative character; it is then open, under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act, for a rival union to seek to replace it.