M.P. RASHTRIYA BROOKE BOND CHAHA KARMACHARI SINGH, KANHAN, NAGPUR Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders of the Assistant Registrar of Unions, Nagpur and the Industrial Court, Nagpur, by which the respondent No. 2 was held to be entitled to be registered as a Representative Union in respect of the industry engaged in blending and packing of tea in the local area of Ramtek Tahsil, Nagpur District. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a recognised Union under section 3 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act), before the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) was made applicable to the Vidarbha Region with effect from 1-5-1965 consequent on the enactment of the Bombay Industrial Relations (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1964 (No. 22 of 1965). Under section 128A of the Bombay Act it is provided in clause (e) of the proviso that any union registered as a recognised union for any local area for any industry under the Act so repealed shall be deemed to be a Representative union for the industry in that local area under that Act. The Bombay Act did not contemplate the concept of a recognised union but instead it dealt with the concept of a representative union under section 13 of that Act. In sub-section (1) of section 13 it was provided that any union which has for the whole of the period of three calendar months immediately proceeding the calendar months in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than twenty-five per cent, of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union for such industry in such local area. Sec. 16 provided for registration of another union in place of the existing registered union. Now, the respondent No. 2 alleging that it was a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act and that industry engaged in blending and packing of tea in Ramtek tahsil it had a membership of 374 out of the 609 employees during the relevant months of Sept., Oct. and Nov. 1967, applied under section 16 of the Bombay Act for registration as a Representative Union in place of the petitioner Union. A copy of the constitution of the respondent Union was also filed. A notice of this application was issued to the petitioner Union calling upon it to show cause why the respondent Union should not be registered in place of the petitioner Union as provided under section 16(1) of the Bombay Act. The inquiry which the respondent No. 3, the Assistant Registrar of Union, was required to make on the application of the respondent Union was regulated by the provisions of rule 28A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rules). In accordance with sub-rule (3) of rule 28A he asked both the Unions, i.e. the petitioner and the respondent Unions, to produce:

(2.) Now, after the respondent Union filed the documents called for from it and the petitioner Union had submitted its objections, the respondent No. 3 decided to have a spot verification of the membership of the respondent Union and asked the General Secretary of each of the two Unions to be present at the time of the spot inquiry on 26-8-1968 at 9.30 a.m. It does not appear that the spot inquiry was made on that date but the record discloses that the spot inquiry was made by the respondent No. 3 with intimation to both the parties on 20-1-1969, 28 2-1969 and 24-3-1969. The respondent No. 3 made a separate record of the results of the spot inquiry. The record discloses the names of the employees whom he contacted and from whom he ascertained about the membership of the respective Unions. After the spot inquiry was completed, he heard arguments on both the sides and then passed an order on 30-9-1969 holding that the respondent Union fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in section 13 of the Bombay Act for being registered as a representative Union in the industry engaged in blending and packing of tea in the local area of Ramtek tahsil in place of the registered Union and that the respondent Union was not otherwise found to be disqualified for being recognised as a representative Union in the said local area. Consequently he passed an order registering the respondent Union as a Representative Union in place of the petitioner Union. The records of the respondent Union showed that there was a negligible amount of Rs. 1.43 in the Bank when the pass book was submitted to the respondent No. 3, but the respondent No. 3 found that not depositing the amount in the Bank could be an irregularity and that this did not vitiate the membership of the Union. In addition he found that the Government Auditors had audited the accounts of the Union and had not raised any objection with regard to the funds. He took the view that if the office bearers of the Union did not deposit the membership fees in the bank or even if the entire amount was lost the workers who had paid the subscription could not lose their membership of the Union. When he made the spot inquiry he had borne in mind the fact that a member who was in arrears for more than three calendar months could not be taken into account and he has specifically referred to this in paragraph 51 of his order. He also negatived the objection that the membership of the respondent Union was bogus as being baseless, and according to him, the petitioner Union had not produced any evidence to show that the respondent Union had no valid membership. Since some grievance has been made of this approach, it is necessary to refer to the order of the respondent No. 3 where in paragraph 60 he had observed:

(3.) An appeal was filed by the petitioner Union against this order of the respondent No. 3 before the Industrial Court at Nagpur. One of the contentions raised before the Industrial Court was that the application of the respondent Union under section 16 of the Bombay Act was not tenable as by virtue of clause (c) of the proviso to section 123A of the said Act the rights and remedies of the petitioner Union under the C.P. Act were saved and that the application should really have been made under section 7A of the C.P. Act. This contention was negatived by the Industrial Court. It appears that before the Industrial Court the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Assistant Registrar was also challenged but that contention was also negatived. The Industrial Court also negatived the contention that the respondent Union could not claim to be a Representative Union because under its constitution its object was to improve the economic, educational and social conditions of "the employees of its Union". These words are taken from clause 3 of the constitution which recites as one of the objects being "to endeavour to improve the economic, educational and social conditions of the employees of the Bharatiya Swatantra Brooke Bond Chaha Karmachan Sangh". The main ground of objections before the Industrial Court, however, appeared to be that the subscriptions collected were not deposited in the Bank and this showed that the membership was bogus. The other ground was that the inquiry made by the respondent No. 3 was defective inasmuch as he interrogated every fifth member of the two Unions in order be ascertain their membership. But the learned Member of the Industrial Court took the view that the mere fact that the subscriptions collected were not deposited in a Bank would not warrant the conclusion that the membership of the Union must be bogus and that the petitioner Union had not shown as to how the conclusion that the respondent Union had 368 members and the petitioner Union had 147 members was erroneous. It observed: