KRANTIKARI KAMGAR UNION Vs. LABOUR AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in order to challenge an order passed by the conciliation officer declining to allow the Petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings on behalf of the workers of M/s. IPCA laboratories Limited in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar haveli. The Petitioner was registered as a trade union under the trade Unions Act, 1926 and a registration certificate dated 17th november, 2007 has been issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions in the State of Maharashtra. The Fourth Respondent is a trade union by the name of Akhil Dadra and Nagar Haveli Kamgar sangh. According to the Petitioner, the employees of M/s. IPCA laboratories Limited (the Third Respondent) were members of the fourth Respondent, but resigned from the union some time in november, 2007. The Petitioner submitted a charter of demands. The First Respondent who is the Labour and Enforcement Officer of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was, according to the Petitioner, declining to permit the Petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings on behalf of the workmen on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to represent workmen outside the State of maharashtra. The General Secretary of the Fourth Respondent is a member of Parliament. It has been alleged that on 14th February, 2008 during the course of a meeting which was called at the office of the First Respondent, the workmen were assaulted at the behest of the Fourth Respondent. In a writ petition filed by the Petitioner before this Court, an order was passed on 9th April, 2008 in terms of the statement made by the First Respondent to the effect that the question as to whether the Petitioner could represent the workers in the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the charter of demands submitted by the Petitioner to the Fourth Respondent would be decided by the First Respondent. The Petition was accordingly disposed of. Thereupon by the impugned order dated 24th April, 2008 the First Respondent held that the Petitioner is not entitled to participate in the conciliation proceedings under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to the workmen of the third Respondent.

(2.) IN passing the impugned order, the First Respondent has come to the conclusion that the Trade Unions Act, 1926 forms a complete code pertaining to the registration of trade unions and, if a union registered in one State desires to operate in another State, its objects must specifically provide that the union would operate in more than one State. The First Respondent has held that the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, mumbai to the Petitioner was under the Bombay Trade Unions regulations 1927 and not under the Central Trade Unions regulations 1938. The First Respondent held that the objects of the Petitioner are confined to the State of Maharashtra only. The first Respondent has relied upon certain documents which were produced in pursuance of an application under the Right to information Act, 2005 in order to hold that the Petitioner is registered only for the State of Maharashtra and is not registered as a union operating in more than one State. 2a. On behalf of the Petitioner reliance has been placed on the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and it has been urged that under Section 2, the expression "appropriate government" means in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State, the Central Government and in relation to other trade unions, the State Government. Hence, it was submitted that unless the objects clause of a trade union contain a restriction confining a union to one State, it would be the Central Government which would be the appropriate government. Reliance has also been placed on diverse notifications issued under the Government of india Act 1935, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Article 258 of the constitution of India. The effect thereof, it is urged that the functions of the Central Government under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 have been entrusted to the State Government in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one State and whose head office is situated in a particular State. In fact, it was urged that as a consequence the then government of Bombay appointed the Registrar of Trade Unions for the State of Bombay to be the Registrar of Trade Unions also in relation to those unions whose objects were not confined to and whose head office is situated in the then State of Bombay. In the present case, it was submitted that ex facie, the objects of the union are not confined to the State of Maharashtra and therefore there was nothing to preclude the union from participating in the conciliation proceedings pertaining to the workmen of the Third respondent in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Finally, the attention of the Court was also drawn to the fact that on 19th May, 2008 a communication has been addressed to the registrar of Trade Unions of a formal amendment having been made to the constitution of the Petitioner in pursuance of a general meeting of the union held on 12th May, 2008 specifically incorporating the provision that the activities of the union would extend all over the territory of India.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel appearing for the Fourth respondent submitted that the Fourth Respondent is an established trade union and that in pursuance of the conciliation proceedings which took place before the First Respondent an industrial settlement was arrived at under Section 18 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of the Fourth Respondent it was urged that the definition of the expression "appropriate government" must be read to mean that unless a specific provision is made in the objects clause of the constitution of a trade union to the effect that the objects of the union would extend to more than one State, it is only the State Government which would be the appropriate government. Consequently, in the present case it was submitted that it was the State Government which was the appropriate government and that the Petitioner had no locus to participate in the conciliation proceedings in the Union Territory of dadra and Nagar Haveli. Reliance was placed on the documents which were revealed in the course of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. These documents pertain to the report of the Scrutiny Officer who conducted a scrutiny when the Petitioner had made an application for registration. The report of the Scrutiny officer which was signed by the members of the Petitioner inter alia indicated that the union is a union of workers working in various industries in Maharashtra.