GLASS DIVISION KAMGAR SANGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) TRADE Union is to fight against exploitation of the working class in the factories, industries or in any kind of employment. They have to minimise and if possible, to abolish exploitation of the employees by the employers. While in the process of removing exploitation, they must always bear in mind that neither the industries nor industrialists can be and should be destroyed as the destruction of industries would be self-destructive of the working class itself. It might be, perhaps the trade unionists think that the industrialists or the entrepreneurs are evils but they must remember that they are the necessary wheels in the system. According to the industrialists or the capitalists, the labour might be considered in the same process of thinking as evil but it is also the necessary wheel which can never be whisked away from the system. In short, both the wheels i. e. the capital and the labour are essential in the system and both must coexist in mutual cooperation, neither should try to harm the other. Both must observe their respective Dharma and should not cross the Laxman Rekha.

(3.) THE facts in the present case have made me to begin this judgment as above. It is extremely sad that the Trade Unions in the small towns more tend to cause harm to the industries by adopting extreme methods of destruction of the industries. A large number of industries have made good efforts to spread their industries by moving out of the congested and concentrated industrial cities so that the local population, which has the tendency to reach the industrial cities for jobs, get employment in their own home towns. In this process, a number of other civic problems are also solved and the concentration or the pressure on the industrialised cities is reduced. The Trade Unions must always remember that they have to function within their local limits and in the interest of the local population so that unemployment problem is solved. These small towns need such small or medium or even large industries for the prosperity and progress of the small cities. In stead of helping such entrepreneurs by extending the hand of co-operation, it is unfortunate that the local Trade Unions, for their own selfish motives, tend to cause harm and ultimately the industries end up in winding up. In the present case, it is shocking that both the petitioners Unions have, without any hesitation and in total ignorance of the law, been claiming that both of them are recognised Unions in the one and the same undertaking of the respondent No. 2 industry. Even in their complaint of Unfair Labour Practice filed before the Industrial Court, both the Unions jointly have asserted and averred with all solemnity that they are functioning in the said Industry as recognised Unions. Even the Industrial Court has not applied its mind to this very crucial point that under the provisions of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, there cannot be two recognised Unions in one undertaking. Across the Bar, I had repeatedly asked the learned Advocate for the petitioners whether he still maintained that both of them are the recognised Unions in one undertaking or whether there are two undertakings of the same Industry or the employer. I had also tried to explain to him whether by recognition he meant only registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, he repeated that both the Unions were recognised under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. Thereafter, I enquired from him to show the recognition certificates granted by the Industrial Court under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, he was not able to produce any such evidence to show that both the unions were recognised Unions functioning in one and the same undertaking. On this point alone, the complaint deserved to be dismissed. However, it appears that even the Industrial Court was unaware of the provisions of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 and, therefore, he proceeded to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with the pleadings. Even, the employer i. e. the respondent No. 2 has merely pleaded that the complainants Unions had no locus standi etc.