FORCE MOTORS LIMITED Vs. POONA EXPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the same order, therefore they are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. The Writ Petition no. 2907/2006 is filed by the Company while writ Petition No. 2878/2006 is filed by the union. For the purpose of reference to contesting parties, reference is made to the Writ petition No. 2907/2006.

(2.) THE order challenged in both the petitions is dated March 22, 2006 passed by the industrial Court, Pune on an application made by respondent No. 1 Union under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU and pulp Act" ). By the impugned order, the industrial Court cancelled the status of recognised Union of respondent No. 2 and granted recognition to respondent No. 1 Union in respect of the Company - Bajaj Tempo limited, Akurdi, Pune. So the union which was earlier recognised has filed one petition and the company has filed another petition.

(3.) THE Company's case is that it is incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of commercial vehicles. One of the factories of the Company is located at Akurdi, Pune in which 2100 employees are employed. Respondent No. 1, who claimed to be registered trade union filed application under Section 14 of the MRTU and pulp Act for cancellation of the recognition of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 made an application under the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act claiming that for the period preceding six months of the application it had membership of 1973 employees out of total number of 2100 employees employed under the petitioner undertaking. Respondent No. 1 union, therefore, prayed that the recognition of bharatiya Kamgar Sena should be cancelled and in its place respondent No. 1 should be granted recognition. The Company as well as respondent No. 2 Union filed written statement denying respondent No. 1 Union's membership as claimed. They also denied that respondent no. 1 union was eligible to the grant of recognition in respect of the undertaking. Respondent No. 2 - Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (hereinafter referred as "bks") claimed that it was recognized union since 1998 and it continued to enjoy membership of the employees of the Company. Even basic registration of respondent No. 1 Union was challenged by the BKS and the Company. The industrial Court decided this issue as preliminary issue by an order holding that respondent No. 1 was a registered trade union. Certain other facts have been also mentioned in the writ petitions which are not necessary for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. But a development which took place during the course of hearing before the Industrial Court needs to be mentioned as a ground related to it had been agitated by the petitioner to challenge the order of the Tribunal. On September 16, 2004 the BKS filed an application alleging that respondent No. 1 union had directed the employees to attend the office of the Industrial court and sign affidavits to the effect that they were members of respondent No. 1 union. The bks prayed that the Registry should be asked not to entertain the affidavits as it was a settled position in law that verification of membership can not be done on the basis of such affidavits. The respondent No. 1 union filed reply submitting that the affidavits were being filed for some different purpose and the same shall not be relied upon for the purpose of verification of membership. The Industrial court on September 29, 2004 rejected the application of BKS making it clear that the affidavits would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of verification of membership. The Industrial Court appointed an Investigation officer and directed him to verify membership of respondent No. 1 union as well as of BKS for the period of six calendar months, immediately preceding the month of September, 2003. The investigation Officer submitted report on october 26, 2004. As per the said report, BKS had exclusive membership of 270, respondent no. 1 had exclusive membership of 26, whereas 1908 employees were common members. The investigation Officer also observed that respondent No. 1 Union had never deposited any amount in the Bank. Respondent No. 1 union also filed an application along with a list and identical affidavits of 1556 employees on november 26, 2004 alleging that they had ceased to be the members of BKS and had become members of respondent No. 1 Union from December 12, 2002. The objections were taken to such affidavits. But Industrial Court held that such affidavits shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of verification of membership. The Industrial Court, however, on november 29, 2004 permitted cross examination of 99 employees out of 1556 employees who had filed their affidavits. Out of 99 employees 17 employees in their cross-examination admitted that they still continued to be the members of BKS. employees admitted in their cross-examination that they had filed affidavits only on an assurance by respondent No. 1 union that they would be reimbursed the wages deducted on account of go-slow resorted to by them. Having regard to the fact that 17 employees in cross-examination had stated that they continued to be the members of BKS and 7 employees had turned hostile, BKS applied that it should be allowed to cross-examine all 1556 employees. On April 30, 2005, however, the industrial Court rejected the application.