ORDINANCE FACTORY KAMGAR UNION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 31/05/2019 that has been passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur on the application for grant of interim relief. By the said order the Tribunal did not permit the petitioner- Union to address Gate-meetings of workers through its President.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that according to the petitioner which is a registered trade union formed in June 1953 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, the said Act). Its members are employed with the Ordinance Factory. One Shri Rajendra Jha was holding the office of General Secretary and was thereafter elected as its President. Shri Jha however was dismissed from service on 27/09/1992. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought to withdraw the facilities that were available to a recognised Union on the ground that the President of the Union was a dismissed employee and as per the Rules of Recognition, 1995, a dismissed employee could not be an office-bearer of the Union. The Union being aggrieved by the said stand taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as communicated on 26/02/2015 filed Writ Petition No.4602/2015 before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court. By order dated 19/06/2015 the Court did not entertain the writ petition and granted liberty to the Union to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum under provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant thereto the Union approached the Ministry of Labour, Government of India which resulted in a reference being made on account of existence of an industrial dispute. The reference included the question as to whether the recognised Union could negotiate collectively in the presence of its President/office bearer irrespective of the fact that he was a dismissed employee. The Union accordingly filed its Statement of Claim before the Tribunal and took the stand that the benefits of recognition of a registered Union could not be withdrawn on the ground that an office-bearer of the Union was a dismissed employee. Along with the said Statement of Claim an application dated 22/03/2019 seeking interim relief so as to restrain the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from committing any unfair labour practice on the premise that the office- bearer was a dismissed employee came to be moved. Affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 denying any unfair labour practice to have been committed. By the order dated 31/05/2019 the learned Presiding Officer held that the interim relief sought could not be granted as the Recognition Rules did not permit a dismissed employee to be an office- bearer of the Union and also on the ground that the Ministry of Defence which had recognised the Union was not a party to the proceedings. Being aggrieved by said order the Union has challenged the same.

(3.) Shri B. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union submitted that there was no bar for a dismissed employee to act as an office-bearer of the Union. The recognition to the union was granted by the Ministry of Defence under the Rules of 1950 in the year 1956. Since the Union merely sought to hold Gate-meetings outside the factory premises there was no reason for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to prevent holding of such Gate- meetings only on the ground that the President of the Union was a dismissed employee. It was further submitted that the procedure of Recognition Rules, 1995 was applicable only to those Unions who were seeking fresh registration and Unions which were already recognised could not be bound by the conditions imposed by the Procedure for Recognition in the year 1996. This position was clarified by revising the said procedure in 1997. Referring to the provisions of Section 22(2) of the said Act it was submitted that a dismissed employee was not prevented from acting as an office-bearer. Reference was made to the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.600/2010 (K. K. Dubey and ors vs. West Central Railways (WCR) Thr. General Manager and ors.) decided on 22/07/2011 wherein it was held that a retired or retrenched employee was not barred from being an office-bearer of a registered trade union. This order was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 06/07/2015 and thus on the same analogy in absence of any bar for a dismissed employee to act as an office-bearer, the interim relief as prayed for ought to have been granted. It was thus submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the relief as prayed for ought to be granted.