CHEMPLAST EMPLOYEES UNION, RAMNAGAR, METTUR DAM Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether an appeal can be maintained before the appellate authority by the petitioner-union. It is submitted that there are certified Standing Orders between the Management of Chemical and Plastics India Limited, Mettur Dam and the Workmen. The Management wanted an amendment to modify the Standing Orders and therefore under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (standing Orders) Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', notice was issued to the Union, namely, the writ petitioner herein Chemplast Employees Union and another union, Mattur Dam. The certifying officer passed an order, dated 23rd September, 1980, overruling the objections of the Unions and allowed the amendment as prayed for by the Management. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore. One of the points urged was that the Union has no right to prefer the appeal. This was upheld by the Labour Court on the basis of the rulings reported in Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. Secretary, Madurai Motor Labour Union and Others., 1980 2 LLJ 313. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that under S. 10(2) of the Act, the right to move an amendment to the Certified Standing Orders is conferred either upon the the Management or the workmen. However, it does not curtail the rights of the Union to make a representation in opposition to the amendment sought for. As a matter of fact, a careful reading of S. 19(3) of the Act will clearly show that the procedure either for the original certification or the amendment to be carried out to the Certified Standing Orders, is the same. Where therefore, under S. 5(2) of the Act, an opportunity is given to the Trade Union or any other representative of the workmen to put forth its objections, the same procedure is equally applicable to this case as well. The Labour Court had gone wrong in applying the rulings reported in Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. Secretary, Madurai Motor Labour Union and Others., 1980 2 LLJ 313. That was a case wherein the question related to the right of a Union to prefer an amendment. Having regard to the restricted language employed in S. 10(2), it was held that the Union had no such right. That is distinguishable clearly because, we are not concerned with the right to move. We are only concerned with the right to make representation where either of the union or the workmen seek an amendment. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed.

(2.) In opposition to this, learned counsel for the Management says that once the right to move an amendment is conferred only on the workmen or the management as the case may be, merely because a notice was given by the Certifying Officer, it cannot be contended that the Union is a person aggrieved. This is all the more so, because the Union has no right to seek an amendment. In such a case it stands to reason that it has equally no right to appeal as well. An union cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved is well-settled by the decision of this Court which is rightly relied on by the Labour Court reported in Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. Secretary, Madurai Motor Labour Union and Others., 1980 2 LLJ 313.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the above matter. The matter has not been adverted to in the proper perspective by the Labour Court. The Writ Petitioner Union was correctly heard when the management wanted to seek an amendment before the Certifying Officer. Section 10(3) of the Act reads as follows :