Case: G.S. Dhara Singh Vs. E.K. Thomas &amp; Ors

the Additional Sub-Judge, Cochin against the decrees passed by the Munsiff in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. After hearing the par ties the learned Sub Judge found that the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had received from the management amounts on behalf of the workmen concerned towards gratuity and accident benefit fund but the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree a t the hands of the Civil Court since the suits were not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19)7?. and the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 which provided for separate remedies. He accordingly set a side the decrees passed in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the suits filed by them. Aggrieved by the common Judgment dated 21.8.1980 of the learned Additional Sub-Judge Respondent Nos. 1 and 7 filed Second Appeal No. 537 of 1981-F and Second Appeal No. 535 of 1981-G respectively on the file of the High Court of Kerala. The two second appeals were heard together and the High Court by its common Judgment dated 22. 10. 1987 set aside the judgment and decrees passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decrees passed by the Trial Court. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner against the said common judgment of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.At the hearing of the Special Leave Petition the learned counsel for the petitioner stated and we think rightly that the ground on which the First Appellate Court had set aside the decrees passed by the Trial Court, namely, that the suits were barred under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 was unsustainable. But he, however, contended that since the amounts had been realised by the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 from the management under settlements which had been entered into through the trade union Respondents 1 and 2 could not claim the amount after resigning from the membership of the trade union as the said amounts formed part of the general fund of the trade union to which a member who had resigned had no right. The learned counsel further urged that since the amounts were made available to the trade union by the employer for the benefit of the member s of the trade union on the happening of certain contingencies and since the resignation from membership of the trade union was not one such contingency a member of a trade union who had resigned from the membership of the trade union could not claim the amount. He further urged that only on the dissolution of the trade union its funds could be distributed as per the rules of the trade union and where the rules did not provide for the same then the fund was liable to be distribute d as per rule 11(1) of the Central Trade Union Regulations, 1938. 3. We do not find that the petitioner is right in his contentions. Admittedly, the amounts were received by the trade union from the employer concerned towards the gratuity and accident benefit to which the workers were entitled. There was no scheme drawn up by the trade union regarding the payment of the gratuity amount and the accident benefit fund received on behalf of the Workmen to the workmen concerned. The re was no agreement between the trade union and its members that the amount received towards gratuity and accident benefit should form part of funds of the trade union. Any amount received for and on behalf of the members is liable to he refunded t o the workmen concerned.. In the instant case the amount which had been received on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 1 by the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had, therefore, to be refunded to them on their resignation from the membership of the trade union. We do not find any tenable defence which the trade union could put forward in the circumstances of the case.On the question that the workmen concerned were entitled to the amounts received on their behalf there is a concurrent finding of all the three courts in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision in Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay and Anr. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and Ors., [ l985 ] 2 S.C.R. 492 is of no assistance to the petitioner. In that case this Court was concerned with the validity of clause 17 of the Settlement, referred to therein, which read as follows: "Arrears will be paid within two months from the date of signing of the settlement. Further, the Company shall collect from each workman an amount equivalent to 15% of the gross arrears payable to each employee under this settlement as contribution to the Union Fund and this Amount shall be paid to the Union within 3 days of the payment of arrears by Payees A/c Cheque." (emphasis added) 4. The appellant in the above case which was a non-recognised union had challenged the validity of clause 17, referred to above, on the ground that it permitted a compulsory exaction not permitted by the Payment of Wages Act from the arrears payable to the workmen. This Court rejected the said contention since under clause 17 the amount of 15% of the gross arrears received by the Union was to be treated as contribution to the Union Fund and that the said clause was a valid one. 5. In the case before us the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have not shown that there was any such settlement between the management and the trade union or a scheme prepared by the trade union which was binding on the workmen under which the amounts received towards the gratuity and the accident benefit fund on behalf of the workmen would become a part of the Union fund. 6. We do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]At the hearing of the Special Leave Petition the learned counsel for the petitioner stated and we think rightly that the ground on which the First Appellate Court had set aside the decrees passed by the Trial Court, namely, that the suits were barred under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 was unsustainable3. We do not find that the petitioner is right in his contentions. Admittedly, the amounts were received by the trade union from the employer concerned towards the gratuity and accident benefit to which the workers were entitled. There was no scheme drawn up by the trade union regarding the payment of the gratuity amount and the accident benefit fund received on behalf of the Workmen to the workmen concerned. The re was no agreement between the trade union and its members that the amount received towards gratuity and accident benefit should form part of funds of the trade union. Any amount received for and on behalf of the members is liable to he refunded t o the workmen concerned.. In the instant case the amount which had been received on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 1 by the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had, therefore, to be refunded to them on their resignation from the membership of the trade union. We do not find any tenable defence which the trade union could put forward in the circumstances of the case.On the question that the workmen concerned were entitled to the amounts received on their behalf there is a concurrent finding of all the three courts in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision in Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay and Anr. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and Ors., [ l985 ] 2 S.C.R. 492 is of no assistance to the petitioner. In that case this Court was concerned with the validity of clause 17 of the Settlement, referred to therein, which read as follows:"Arrears will be paid within two months from the date of signing of the settlement. Further, the Company shall collect from each workman an amount equivalent to 15% of the gross arrears payable to each employee under this settlement as contribution to the Union Fund and this Amount shall be paid to the Union within 3 days of the payment of arrears by Payees A/c Cheque." (emphasis added)4. The appellant in the above case which was ad union had challenged the validity of clause 17, referred to above, on the ground that it permitted a compulsory exaction not permitted by the Payment of Wages Act from the arrears payable to the workmen. This Court rejected the said contention since under clause 17 the amount of 15% of the gross arrears received by the Union was to be treated as contribution to the Union Fund and that the said clause was a valid one5. In the case before us the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have not shown that there was any such settlement between the management and the trade union or a scheme prepared by the trade union which was binding on the workmen under which the amounts received towards the gratuity and the accident benefit fund on behalf of the workmen would become a part of the Union fund6. We do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.