BHARATIYA KAMGAR SENA Vs. CHEFAIR EMPLOYEES GUILD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Rule called out and heard forthwith.

(2.) The Petitioner Union has been functioning as a registered trade Union of M/s. Chefair Flight Catering, Respondent No. 2. In the passage of time, they have been signing different settlement with Respondent No. 2 relating to the conditions of service matters of member employees and other matters related thereto. Respondent No. 1 - Union on 28th October, 2003 filed an application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the period from April, 2003 to September, 2003, notice of which was displayed on 17th December, 2003. In the proceedings, the Petitioner - Union filed an application for impleadment as a necessary party which was allowed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Thereafter, on 5th January, 2004, the PetitionerUnion filed the Written statement opposing the application for recognition filed by Respondent No. 1Union, and on 6th February, 2004 Respondent No. 1 filed an application for appointment of Investigating Officer for verification of relevant documents/records of Respondent No. 1 - Union which was allowed and the matter was referred for investigation to the Investigating Officer by the Industrial Court. The Investigating Officer submitted his report after verifying the records of the Petitioner Union as well as Respondent No. 1 Union on 1st July, 2004 and it recorded the finding that there was 391 total employees, out of which the Petitioner Union had claimed 259 as their members and Respondent No. 1 Union had claimed 251 as their members. The Investigating Officer observed that 171 employees were common members of both the Unions and accordingly stated that Respondent No. 1 had total membership of 64.19 % and if the common members were excluded, then the membership would be 20.46%. Objection to the report of the Investigating Officer was filed by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner filed an application for rejection of the application of Respondent No. 1 Union on the ground that Respondent No. 1 Union had got membership of 20.46% which was below 30% and as such the application could not be entertained and decided in terms of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The parties led evidence before the Industrial Court. After hearing the parties, the Industrial Court rejected the application of Respondent No. 1 Union vide its order dated 16th September, 2005. An application had also been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 on 28th October, 2005 praying for liberty to file affidavits on record of 112 employees who were common members, which was opposed and this application was disposed of vide order dated 6th October, 2007 by the Industrial Court granting liberty to file affidavit as well as liberty to the Petitioner to lead further evidence, if any.