Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union v. Sarva Shramik Sangh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
TA Run Chatterjee
Judgment Date: 2006-09-25
Court Decision / Holding: The Supreme Court modified the High Court's direction, directing the Industrial Court to decide the 1988 and 2003 MRTU applications as if filed on 1 January 2006, conducting a six-month membership enquiry ending 1 January 2006 under Section 12(2) read with Section 11(1). The parties may amend their applications; the Industrial Court must decide within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is to send a copy to the Industrial Court for action.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union

Respondents

Sarva Shramik Sangh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ramesh Singh
• Nikhil Goel
• Sheela Goel

Counsels for Respondents

• Bharat Sangal
• P.V. Pavaskar
• R.R. Kumar
• Samyadip Chatterji
• V. Pattanaik
• Suchita Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union v. Sarva Shramik Sangh concerns the recognition of trade unions under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU Act). Respondent Sarva Shramik Sangh filed a recognition application in 1988 and applicant Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union in 2003. The High Court remanded these applications to the Industrial Court in 2005 to decide whether each union had membership of not less than 30% of the total employees in the six months immediately prior to their respective filing dates (17 February 1988 for the respondent, and 10 October 2003 for the applicant). The remand envisaged that the Industrial Court would conduct enquiries in 2006, creating potential confusion because the relevant periods pertained to different points in time. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s direction, holding that the Industrial Court should treat both applications as if filed on 1 January 2006 and should conduct the investigations under Section 12(2) read with Section 11(1) for the six months immediately preceding 1 January 2006 to determine membership for both unions. The parties may amend their applications, and the Industrial Court must decide within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. The appeal is disposed of. This creates a uniform reference date for membership evaluation under MRTU Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, Section 11Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, Section 12(2)Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, Section 11(1)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant union contends that the MRTU Act requires the Industrial Court to test membership at the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the applications (1988 for respondent No. 1; 2003 for the appellant). It submits that the High Court's remand to conduct enquiries in 2006 based on the respective historical dates would generate confusion and unnecessary duplication. It urges that both applications be treated as having been filed on 1 January 2006 and that the six-month period ending that date be used for membership determinations under sections 12(2) read with 11(1), with liberty to amend.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the membership test must be applied to the six months immediately preceding the respective filing dates (17 February 1988 for the respondent and 10 October 2003 for the appellant) and that the Industrial Court's remand is proper to evaluate whether the unions met the 30% threshold in those periods. They emphasize adherence to the statutory framework and highlight the potential confusion if the periods are reset to 1 January 2006.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNION _v._ SARY A SHRAMIK SANGH AND ORS. ## SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] ## _labour laws:_ _Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention· of Unfair labour Practices Act-Sections I 1 and 12-Application for grant of_ C _recognition in 1988 and 2003-Remand of mauer to industrial Court in 2005, to consider if the Union had membership of not less than 30% of total number of employees in six months immediately prior to the month of filing of application-Enquiry would be conducted in 2006 and not in 1988 or 2003-Thus, direction by High Court modified and applications treated to_ D _be filed on 1.1.2006-/nvestigations to be conducted accordingly._ Respondent no. 1 and the appellant filed application under section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act for grant of recognition, in 1988 and 2003 respectively. High Court remanded the respondent's application to the Industrial Court in 2005 E which was to consider whether respondent no. 1 had more than 30% of the employees as members in the six months immediately prior to 17.2.1988 and with regard to appellant's application, prior to 10.10.2003. The Industrial Court is to conduct the enquiry in 2006 and not in 1988 or 2003 and as such the same would create confusion. Hence the present appeal. F ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The direction of the High court is modified to the extent that the Industrial Court will decide the application filed by respondent no. I in 1988 and the appellant in 2003, treating the same to have been filed on 1.1.2006 and conduct the investigations required under section 12(2) real! with section G 11 (I) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act for the period of six months immediately preceding . 1.1.2006 to determine the membership of the respondent as well as of the appellant. (635-B-DI H 633 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. ## A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4256 of2006. From the Judgment and Final Order dated 23.12.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2375/1993. Ramesh Singh, Nikhil Goel and Sheela Goel for the Appellant. **B** Bharat Sangal, P.V. Pavaskar, R.R. Kumar. Samyadip Chatterji, V. Pattanaik and Suchita Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **C** **DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.** Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both sides. The above appeal is limited to the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order dt. 23.12.2005 whereby the High Court remanded **D** application (MRTU) No. 8 of 1998 to the Industrial Court, Bombay for a fresh decision. It is submitted that as per Section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU Act) on receipt of an application from a Union for recognition under Section 11 of the Industrial Court has to cause notice to be displayed on the notice board of the undertaking the date on which it intends to decide the said application. E Under Clause (2), the Court can hold an enquiry in the matter before deciding the application. Further under Section 11 Clause (I) any Union when it makes the application should have membership of not less than 30% of the total number of employees, for the whole of the period of six calendar months . immediately preceding the calendar month of filing of application. **F** In the instant i;ase, respondent No. I (Sarva Shramik Sangh) has filed an application No.8 of 1988 on 17 .2.1988 for being granted recognition. Similarly, the appellant herein (Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union) filed an application No.20 of2003 on 10.10.2003 for being granted recognition. Under the impugned direction read with Section 11 of the MRTU Act, the Industrial G Court, on remand, will have to consider _vis-a-vis_ the respondent No. I whether it had more than 30% of the employees as members in the six months immediately prior to 17.2.1988. In the case of the appellant's application, it would have to consider whether the appellant had more than 30% of the employees as members in the six months immediately prior to 10.10.2003. This will clearly create confusion in the matter, especially as the enquiry to be H VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNION _v._ SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH [AR. LAKSHMANAN, 1.1635 conducted by the Industrial Court would be done in 2006 and not in I 988 or A 2003. We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment of the High Court as under:- "The direction of the High court in its impugned judgment and B order dated 23.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2375 of 1993 is modified to the extent that the Industrial Court will decide the Application (MRTU) No.8of1988 filed by the Sarva Shramik Sangh, respondent No. I herein, as well as the Application (MRTU) No.20 of 2003 filed by the Vegetable Vitamins Foods Employees Union, petitioner herein, treating the two Application to have been filed on 1.1.2006 and C after conducting the investigations required under Section 12 (2) read with Section 11 (I) of the MRTU Act for the period of six month~ immediately preceding 1.1.2006 to determine the membership of the Sarva Shramik Sangh as well as of the Vegetable Vitamins Foods Employees Union. The parties are at liberty to amend their respective D Applications if so required. With the above modification the Special Leave Petition is disposed of." Since the matter is pending for very long time, we direct the Industrial Court, Bombay to dispose of both the Application Nos.8 of 1988 and 20 of 2003 within three months from today. The appeal stands disposed of E accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is dir~cted to send a copy of this Judgment to the Industrial Court, Bombay immediately for information and necessary action. NJ. Appeal disposed of.