DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS Vs. AIRFREIGHT EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and as a separate legal entity carrying on the business in the name and style of DHL Worldwide Express (I) Private Limited. Before formation of this petitioner-Company in the year 1981, the business which it is carrying on was formed part of a division of a company by name Air freight Limited. It is in 2001, the said courier business was spin off into a separate entity namely, the petitioner-company. Before separation of Airfreight Limited, the workers of Airfreight Limited had formed an Association by name Airfreight Employees union, the 1st respondent herein. At the time of incorporation of the Company in 2001, the Workmen employed in Courier division were taken over by the petitioner-company and thereafter, they became the employees of the petition-company and they ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the parent company.

(2.) THE 1st respondent-Trade Union addressed a joint letter to the Airfreight Limited as well as to the petitioner-company on 10. 3. 2003 with a request to recognise five of their workmen as Protected Workmen under Section 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for the year 2003-2004. Annexure-A is the copy of the said letter. The petitioner replied to the said letter by contending that no such union by name Airfreight Employees Union is functioning in the petitioner-Company, therefore, they do not recognise the 1st respondent union and that even the 1st respondent has no locus-standi to seek recognition of the workmen of its company as protected workmen. Apart from this, five employees for whom they have claimed the protected workmen status, only three were on the rolls of the petitioner-company and therefore, it has rejected the said request. Thereafter, the 1st respondent made an application by way of letter dated 4. 4. 2003 to the 2nd respondent seeking recognition for the five persons, whom they have been mentioned in the aforesaid letter. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent a notice to the petitioner and called upon them to have their say in the matter. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and filed a detailed reply contending that the 1st respondent has included the three names of its employees for recognition as protected workmen. As the petitioner do not recognise the 1st respondent union, it is espousing the cause of the workmen working in their establishment. It was further contended that there is only one union by name DHL World Wide Employees Union, which has got majority of the workmen of the Bangalore Office, is functioning in the petitioner establishment. Accordingly, the petitioner has entered into settlement with the said union. Therefore, the question of recognising the members of the 1st respondent as protected workmen would not arise. It was subsequently contended that Airfreight Limited and petitioner is two different and distinct legal entities and no representation can be made to them in common. Therefore, they sought for rejection of the request of the 1st respondent. On considering the rival contentions, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 6. 5. 2003 over-ruling the objections raised by the petitioner and granted the recognition as sought for by the 1st respondent as protected workmen to five of its employees. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order first contends that the 1st respondent-union has no connection with the petitioner-establishment. Therefore, the question of considering the request of conferring the status of protected workmen to their members would not arise. Secondly, it was contended that in the petitioner-establishment, already there is an union by name DHL Worldwide Express Employees Union, with whom in fact, they have already entered into settlement which is being disputed by the 1st respondent. The Conciliation Officer has not granted his approval to the said settlement and therefore, the matter is before the Labour Court for adjudication. Therefore, the question of recognizing the employees of the 1st respondent as protected workmen would not arise. Lastly, it was contended that though these facts are brought to the notice of the authorities, the authority neither considered the said contentions nor held any enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of these allegations but has mechanically proceeded to grant the prayer sought for by the 1st respondent. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be quashed.