SARVA SHARMIK Vs. BOMBAY DYEING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on March 28, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 79 of 2007 is under challenge in this appeal. By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ Petition filed by the Appellant in limine.

(2.) The Petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The Respondent No. 1 is an employer dealing in dying and manufacturing of the cotton and is therefore, being textile industries as covered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "B.I.R. Act" for short). The Respondent No. 2 namely Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh is registered representative Union in the Textile Industries and therefore, is entitled to represent and negotiate with the problems of the employees with Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was in difficulty. Inspite of the several measures taken by Respondent No. 1 to stand in competition, the Respondent No. 1 has incurred continuous losses and therefore, their activities as of today are not viable. After taking review of the state of affairs of Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 issued change notice under Section 42(1) of the B.I.R. Act in Form K to Respondent No. 2 namely Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh being Representative Union in the Textile Industries. After having negotiations with the Representative Union, memorandum of agreement was arrived at on September 3, 2006. The said agreement has been duly signed by the Officers of the Respondent No. 2 Union and the Executive Directors and Vice Chairman of the Respondent No. 1. It was equally signed by the General Manager, Textiles and Chief Manager, New Bleach Works. This was an agreement signed by the parties under Section 44(1) of the B.I.R. Act. It was submitted to the Registrar under the B.I.R. Act for registration. The Registrar has registered the said agreement after passing the order of November 14, 2006. The said order is under challenge in the Writ Petition No. 79 of 2007 which as stated above has been rejected by the single Judge of hits Court in limine.

(3.) After the agreement was submitted to the Registrar under Section 44(1), it was objected to by the present petitioner. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the Registrar in view of the provisions of Section 44(2) of the Act and after hearing the parties, namely the employer and Petitioner Union, the impugned order has been passed by giving reasons for every objection raised therein. Now the learned Counsel while challenging the order of the' learned single Judge for rejecting in limine the writ petition, contended that the agreement should not have been registered by the Registrar under B.I.R. Act because this agreement ultimately leads to closure of Respondent No. 1 and this agreement is capable to by-pass the provisions of the closure which is against the provisions of the law and therefore, should not have been registered. The second ground which was raised to challenge the order namely the ' findings recorded by the single Judge or this Court that once the representative Union is in the proceedings, the other unions of the employees have no locus standi is incorrect observation.