Case: Force Motors Limited (Formerly Known As Bajaj Tempo) Limited &amp; Another Vs. Poona Employees Union, Through Its President Mr.Madhav Roham &amp; Others

not signed by any of the office bearers and moreover, said registers were not in prescribed proforma i.e. in Form J as prescribed under the Act. Such documentary evidence of cash book and membership registers without bearing the signature of any of the office bearers of the Union and without maintaining those in prescribed proforma, it can be easily said that such documents are not authentic and authorized and cannot be relied upon. I would like to point out from oral evidence of responsible office bearer of B.K.S. i.e. Vice President of B.K.S. namely, Deoram Bhosale that inspite of holding responsible post of B.K.S. he has not yet read the constitution of B.K.S. We do not find from the impugned order that the onus was discharged by respondent No.1 to prove that it was, at the relevant point of time, representing majority of the members. In paragraph 25 of the said judgment, the Industrial Court dealt with the affidavits and noted the arguments and counter arguments. The learned trial Judge was of the view that though these affidavits could not be taken as proof of membership but these affidavits could be taken to be the proof of the Deponents declaration that he had relinquished his membership from B.K.S. Thus in effect was an attempt to rely on these affidavits for proving the membership of respondent No.1 union. The court said, So, affidavits of 1556 employees of the Company filed on behalf of Applicant Union, can be accepted to substantiate the point that they brought an end to their relationship with B.K.S. and had not paid the membership fees to B.K.S. after December, 2002. Intention of as many as 1556 employees is very clear from their affidavits that they disconnected their tie as members with B.K.S. and come forward to file their respective affidavits of and on behalf of applicant union in this matter for getting the status of recognized union. This was not only against the rules of natural justice, as also about the established law, but against the order passed by the Industrial Court itself earlier. Even if these affidavits could have been taken into consideration, none of the affiants, except 100 affiants for which cross-examination was allowed, could have been taken into consideration. But admittedly the membership cannot be proved on the basis of the affidavits as it is the settled law and we will refer to the judgment in this connection shortly. The conclusion drawn by the learned Judge was, So, after comparing the entire evidence adduced by both unions on the point of strength of their membership read together with report of Investigating Officer as well, 1556 affidavits of the employees filed on record by Applicant Union, I am of the opinion that the Applicant Union was having more than 30% of membership of the total employees of the Company as well as larger membership than the membership of B.K.S. during the period of six months from the month of March, 2003 till August, 2003. So the affidavits filed by 1556 workers plays a decisive role in making the Court to reach the conclusion that the applicant Union represented more than 1556 of the total number of the workers of the undertaking. Therefore, on this ground the petitions are required to be allowed. 12. Whether the said affidavits can be taken into consideration or not, is according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Automobile Products of India Employees Union v/s Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and others, reported in (1990 F.L.R. Vol.61 page 369). This was a case where the Industrial Court tried to find out as to who was representing majority of the members by adopting a method of secret ballot with the consent of contesting parties. This was also not approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealt with the scheme of the Act and observed as under: "The facts in the present case would reveal that what was done by the Industrial Court was to permit the registration of the union as a recognized one by a method which was clearly alien to the Act. The Court in effect allowed the parties to circumvent the provisions of the Act and by adopting a simplistic method directed that whoever commanded a majority of votes of the employees voting on a particular day, would be entitled to the status of the recognized union. In effect, therefore, the Court ignored in particular the mandatory provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19 of the Act. Not only that, but by adopting this method, the Court also failed to find out whether any of those workers, who voted, were members of any of the two unions at any time including on the day of the ballot. This is apart from the fact that what has to be found out is the exclusive membership of the contesting unions continuously over the specified period, the overlapping membership being ignored. The consent of the parties to follow a procedure, which is against the mandatory provisions of the Act, cannot cure the illegality. For reasons which we have indicated earlier the Legislature did not opt for the ballot as a method for determining the representative character of the union and laid down as elaborate procedure with necessary safeguards to do so. In the circumstances, to permit the parties by consent to substitute a procedure of their own is in effect to permit them to substitute the provisions of the Act. Following this Judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order of the Industrial Court cannot be sustained. 13. Coming to the third ground, which challenges the order of the Tribunal on the ground that respondent No.1 union had not complied with the requirement under Section 19(4) of the MRTU & PULP Act, we feel that since we are allowing the writ petition on other two grounds, it may not be necessary to go into that question.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]These provisions enable the Industrial Court to replace a recognized union by another union and if a union is recognized under Section 11, another union at its place can be recognized under Section 14 of the MRTUPULP Act. The only requirement of the Section is that the new union should have larger membership of the employees employed in such an undertaking. Such application can be made only after two years of the recognition of the first union. Under subsection (3) of Section 14, the Industrial Court is empowered to hold an inquiry, as it deems fit, which may include also the recording of evidence of the witnesses and hearing of the parties and after holding inquiry if the court is satisfied that the union satisfies the conditions necessary for recognition specified in Section 11 the court shall recognize the union applying in place; of the recognized union. Therefore, the requirements of section 14 for recognition are necessary to be fulfilled before an application under Section 14 is allowed. This question was considered by this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (BOM) Employees Unionfind ourselves in agreement with the law laid down in the above referred cases by the two Division Benches of this Court. Since respondent No.1 Union had not mentioned any purpose for which the Union was being established in their constitution, they could not have been recognized under Section 11 of the MRTUPULP Act and there was no question, therefore, of an application under Section 14 of the MRTUPULP Act being entertained.Coming to the second ground, that the learned Judge of the Industrial Court accepted affidavits and decided issue on the basis of an inquiry conducted through the Investigation Officer, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the Industrial Court has not only violated the law but relying on the affidavits without rebuttal as no chance of rebuttal was given is even against the rules of natural justice. In order to appreciate this argument, certain orders of the Tribunal need to be examined. On 29th September, 2004, when affidavits were sought to be filed by respondent No.1 union, respondent No.2 union made an application praying that Investigation Officer be appointed and affidavits be not entertained. The Court, however, on the question of filing of affidavits noted, Moreover, the learned Advocate for the applicant union has made it clear that for proving the membership, the affidavits of the employees would not be filed, but for some other relevant purpose, the affidavits may be filed. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present application, vide Exh. NAU14 is premature and filed on hypothetical basis that the affidavits would be filed to prove the membership of the Union. So such an application cannot be allowed. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the Tribunal allowed those affidavits to be filed but not for the purpose of proving the membership. But ultimately he relied on these affidavits for proving the membership of the union. This order was also challenged by way of writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9502 of 2004 but the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to agitate this issue also in case the final order went against him. Again on 29th November, 2004 by an order, the Industrial Court allowed taking on record 1556 affidavits. This application was made by respondent No.1. After discussing the application and objections to it by the petitioner and referring to its earlier order, the Industrial Court passed the followingfor production of the affidavits is allowed with condition that these affidavits would not be used for proving the point of membership of the applicant Union and may be used for other ancillary or relevant aspect. At the same time, theare at liberty to file counter affidavits or to adduce rebuttal evidence in respect of alleged ancillary or relevant aspect which emerged from the affidavits in thisIndustrial Court allowed filing of affidavits with liberty to the other aside to file counter affidavits or adduce rebuttal evidence. It also allowed theof the persons who filed the said affidavits. By an order of 30th April, 2005, the Industrial Court rejected the application of the petitioner tothe persons who had filed affidavits and the reasons given in the order are very interesting, namely, All the affidavits are similar and identical. In such circumstances, opportunity to100 affiants, as given to theis quite sufficient and just. It is not equitable and probable to direct all 1556 affiants to face theIt will take years together to decide the matter. In fact, theare also at liberty to file counter affidavits. Since the original petition is made time bound andunion is restrained from signing the settlement with the company till decision of this main petition, I am of the opinion that the prayer ofunion to call remaining affiants forcannot be granted. If, a person gives an affidavit that he belongs to a particular union, what type of a counter affidavit can be given. The only mode to rebut such an affidavit or to demolish the assertion made in such an affidavit, which appeals to the commons sense, is theof such person. On the one hand the Court allowed 1556 affidavits to be taken on record. On the other hand, the Court confinedonly against 99 persons and, therefore, on the basis of these affidavits if any conclusions were drawn about the membership of respective union would be clearly faulty and unfair.Therefore, let us now examine as to how far the court has relied on these affidavits to come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was representing the majority of the workers as on the crucial date. Although in its earlier orders the Industrial Court had said that the affidavits would be only for the ancillary purposes and not for coming to a conclusion with regard to the strength of membership of respective union, but the learned Counsel submits that, this was the sole evidence the Industrial Court relied upon to come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 was the union representing majority of the members.Before going to the findings, it will also be profitable to note some relevant findings of the Investigation Officer. About applicant union, i.e. respondent No.1, it is stated that they claimed that 1973 workers were there members. Out of the list, the names of 12 members were shown twice in the report. 26 workers in the list of Union were not at all employees of the company. One more worker was also not found in the list. Therefore, the Investigation Officer deleted 39 workers as not eligible members. As such the claim got reduced to 1934 from 1973. In the receipt with regard to the payment of the Unions contribution, no dates were found by the Investigation Officer on many of the receipts. About the recognized union i.e. one of the petitioner who claimed that they had membership of 2166 members, it was found that 41 workers were not seen in the list. Therefore, they were deleted and the claim was as such reduced to 2125 from 2166. From January, 2003 to December, 2003, 2166 members were shown as registered in their books but no responsible officer of the union had signed on the record book. The said recording was not maintained as per the provisions of the Act. The annual fee of the union was Rs.60/. The receipts showing collection from 2166 members were submitted. The contribution of workers were reflected in cash book, but the cash book was not maintained in the prescribed specimen and responsible officer of the union had not signed the cash book. 54 workers had retired/resigned and some of them had even expired. Thereafter the Investigation Officer proceeded to verification of members. He found that both the Unions gave the list of eligible members, which was compared with the list of the workers of the company. Out of 1934 eligible members, there were only 26 members exclusively with respondent No.1 union. 1908 members, who were shown to be members by respondent No.1 union were also members of the other union i.e. recognized union. So the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that 1908 members had a dual membership. They were members of both the unions and ultimately he found that the recognized union had 217 members which was the exclusive membership of that union and only 26 persons were exclusive member of respondent No.1 union which claimed recognition.In the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Industrial Court had framed Issues. Issue Nos.1 and 2 are important for the present question, which read asWhether the applicant Union proves that it has membership of not less than 30% of the total number of the employees, employed in the undertaking for the whole of the period of six months, immediately preceding the calendar month, in which it soWhether the membership of Applicant Union was larger than that of the membership of theNo.2 (Recognized Union), during the whole of the period of six months, prior to the filing of thethese Issues were decided in favour of respondent No.1 Union. We have found that basically the approach of the Industrial Court in proceeding with the controversy was defective. Respondent No.2 UnionBKS was recognized union. It had not to prove any case. The onus was on respondent No.1 union to prove that BKS had lost its representative character within the meaning of Section 11 of the MRTUPULP Act and they were eligible to be recognized under Section 11 of the Act. This approach can be seen from the observations made by the Industrial Court in paragraph 21 of the impugned Judgment. The relevant observations are asthis juncture, alone, I would like to point out that the entire record of B.K.S. pertaining to membership fees as produced before Investigating Officer, is suspicious. I will point out the remarks of Investigating Officer as given on Page 8 of the report. Investigating Officer has remarked that whatever membership fees collected on 7th February, 2003 was shown as received two days earlier i.e. on 5.2.2003 in the cash book. Similarly, whatever membership fees collected on 10th February 2003 is shown as collected two days prior i.e. on 8.2.2003 in cash book. It is very surprised to see that on 5th February 2003 and 8th February 2003 the amounts shown as collected towards membership fees by B.K.S. were not at all collected on those respective days. So, both entries in cash book pertaining to collection of membership fees in cash book, are false and incorrect. Investigating Officer has specifically pointed out on page 8 of his report that cash book maintained by B.K.S. is not in prescribed proforma and it is not signed by any of the office bearers of B.K.S. Moreover, Investigating Officer has also reported on page 5 of his report that membership registers of B.K.S. for the relevant period were not signed by any of the office bearers and moreover, said registers were not in prescribed proforma i.e. in Form J as prescribed under the Act. Such documentary evidence of cash book and membership registers without bearing the signature of any of the office bearers of the Union and without maintaining those in prescribed proforma, it can be easily said that such documents are not authentic and authorized and cannot be relied upon. I would like to point out from oral evidence of responsible office bearer of B.K.S. i.e. Vice President of B.K.S. namely, Deoram Bhosale that inspite of holding responsible post of B.K.S. he has not yet read the constitution ofdo not find from the impugned order that the onus was discharged by respondent No.1 to prove that it was, at the relevant point of time, representing majority of the members. In paragraph 25 of the said judgment, the Industrial Court dealt with the affidavits and noted the arguments and counter arguments. The learned trial Judge was of the view that though these affidavits could not be taken as proof of membership but these affidavits could be taken to be the proof of the Deponents declaration that he had relinquished his membership from B.K.S. Thus in effect was an attempt to rely on these affidavits for proving the membership of respondent No.1 union. The court said, So, affidavits of 1556 employees of the Company filed on behalf of Applicant Union, can be accepted to substantiate the point that they brought an end to their relationship with B.K.S. and had not paid the membership fees to B.K.S. after December, 2002. Intention of as many as 1556 employees is very clear from their affidavits that they disconnected their tie as members with B.K.S. and come forward to file their respective affidavits of and on behalf of applicant union in this matter for getting the status of recognized union. This was not only against the rules of natural justice, as also about the established law, but against the order passed by the Industrial Court itself earlier. Even if these affidavits could have been taken into consideration, none of the affiants, except 100 affiants for whichwas allowed, could have been taken into consideration. But admittedly the membership cannot be proved on the basis of the affidavits as it is the settled law and we will refer to the judgment in this connection shortly. The conclusion drawn by the learned Judge was, So, after comparing the entire evidence adduced by both unions on the point of strength of their membership read together with report of Investigating Officer as well, 1556 affidavits of the employees filed on record by Applicant Union, I am of the opinion that the Applicant Union was having more than 30% of membership of the total employees of the Company as well as larger membership than the membership of B.K.S. during the period of six months from the month of March, 2003 till August, 2003. So the affidavits filed by 1556 workers plays a decisive role in making the Court to reach the conclusion that the applicant Union represented more than 1556 of the total number of the workers of the undertaking. Therefore, on this ground the petitions are required to be allowed.Whether the said affidavits can be taken into consideration or not, is according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Automobile Products of India Employees Union v/s Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and others, reported in (1990 F.L.R. Vol.61 page 369). This was a case where the Industrial Court tried to find out as to who was representing majority of the members by adopting a method of secret ballot with the consent of contesting parties. This was also not approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealt with the scheme of the Act and observed asfacts in the present case would reveal that what was done by the Industrial Court was to permit the registration of the union as a recognized one by a method which was clearly alien to the Act. The Court in effect allowed the parties to circumvent the provisions of the Act and by adopting a simplistic method directed that whoever commanded a majority of votes of the employees voting on a particular day, would be entitled to the status of the recognized union. In effect, therefore, the Court ignored in particular the mandatory provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19 of the Act. Not only that, but by adopting this method, the Court also failed to find out whether any of those workers, who voted, were members of any of the two unions at any time including on the day of the ballot. This is apart from the fact that what has to be found out is the exclusive membership of the contesting unions continuously over the specified period, the overlapping membership beingconsent of the parties to follow a procedure, which is against the mandatory provisions of the Act, cannot cure the illegality. For reasons which we have indicated earlier the Legislature did not opt for the ballot as a method for determining the representative character of the union and laid down as elaborate procedure with necessary safeguards to do so. In the circumstances, to permit the parties by consent to substitute a procedure of their own is in effect to permit them to substitute the provisions of thethis Judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order of the Industrial Court cannot be sustained.Coming to the third ground, which challenges the order of the Tribunal on the ground that respondent No.1 union had not complied with the requirement under Section 19(4) of the MRTUPULP Act, we feel that since we are allowing the writ petition on other two grounds, it may not be necessary to go into that question.