The principal objection being that the appellant union had instigated a strike deemed to be illegal under the Act and was therefore debarred from obtaining recognition.
The appellant did number produce material evidence before the Investigating Officer to meet the objections taken in the written objections as they were given up before the Investigating Officer.
The Court however refused the permission.
Out of 188 workmen, only 12 stated that they were members of the respondent union in 1980.
Both the unions were, therefore, requested to remain present during the companyrse of the said investigation.
The Investigating Officer, therefore, moved the Industrial Court on January 25, 1982 for further directions and the Industrial Court gave the necessary directions in the following terms Heard both Shri Deo and Shri Bandekar.
It appears that in the aforesaid meeting a unanimous decision was taken by all the parties including the representatives of the Second Respondent Union wherein it was expressly agreed that only one question will be put to all workmen, i.e., In the year 1980 you were a member of which Union?
Later on, the Second Respondent withdrew its application for recognition and, therefore, we are number companycerned with the application of the Second Respondent in the present case and the appeal is companyfined only to the application filed by the appellant union.
The order passed by the Industrial Court is as under In this matter the applicant union has produced its documents and the number applicant union although has number produced any documentary evidence has claimed a substantial membership of their union.
The respondent union either gave up other objections or waived the same.
The Industrial Court, however, permitted the respondent union to raise objections despite the fact that the respondent union had given up or waived other objections before the Investigating Officer.
It was further agreed between the parties that in case the workmen did number know the name of the union, they would be asked the name of the union leader or of the Committee Member of the union to which they belong.
The investigation, however, companyld number start on account of some dilatory tactics adopted by the Second Respondent Union.
However, if the number applicant union fails to produce the said documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer may proceed with the inquiry as directed above and submit his report by the end of this month.
The appellant, therefore, had numberoption but to rely only on the material already on the record.
The said agreement between the parties was reduced to writing by the Investigating Officer by his order dated October 16, 1981.
The Second Respondent on or about the 15th of December, 1980, filed certain preliminary objections to the application of the appellant.
Pursuant to the said order dated September 11, 1981, the Investigating Officer called a meeting of the representatives of the appellant and the First and Second Respondents on October 16, 1981 to discuss and decide all the issues relating to the aforesaid investigation as also the nature of questions which should be asked to the workmen who would be appearing before the Investigating Officer.
The Investigating Officer to companytinue his investigation.
This objection was specifically overruled by the Third Respondent.
The Investigating Officer issued a letter to the First Respondent Company dated October 30, 1981 calling upon it to publish a numberice on its Notice Board informing the workmen of the aforesaid investigation proceedings, together with the list of the workmen to be interrogated on behalf of both the unions.
The Industrial Court overruled most of the objections but accepted three objections 1016 raised by the respondent union.
After giving usual numberice to all the parties companycerned, he should proceed with the work, whether any of the parties appeared or number after due service.
In this situation, it can be safely inferred that 172 workmen though number members of the appellant union, had leaning and sympathy towards that union rather than with the respondent union.
In the result, the Industrial Court dismissed the application of the appellant union for recognition.
Liberty is granted to the number applicant union to produce their documents on or before the 21st September, 1981.
Industrial Court.
The agreement also indicated that the inquiry will be companyducted in 1014 Marathi and also if required, either in Hindi or in English, as the case may be.
Although the Second Respondent had taken a number of pleas both in its preliminary and subsequent written objections, it did number raise any such objection before the Investigating Officer and rest companytent by putting one question to all the workmen as agreed upon between the parties before the Investigating Officer.
In the numbermal companyrse, the Industrial Court in the absence of any other objection raised by the respondent union before the Investigating Officer should have accepted the companyclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer.
The respondent union raised a number of objections some based on the written objections and some objections were taken a fresh before the Industrial Court.
On 25th March, 1981, the second respondent filed its own application under section 11 for being registered as a recognised union in the said establishment and claimed membership of 46 per cent of the employees.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.1985 of the Industrial Court at Maharashtra in Appln.
The Second Respondent also filed further written objections to the original application filed by the appellant union.
Further, out of the remaining 176 members claimed by the respondent union, 172 stepped forward to say that they companysidered themselves as the members of the appellant union during the year 1980.
m e Industrial Court also refused to accept the allegation of the respondent union that the appellant had induced workmen to give a favourable reply 1020 on the ground that same had number been raised before the Investigating Officer.
12 for six months The President may exempt any worker or workers from payment of admission fee of Rupee One at any time.
22 of 1980.
But the Constitution and the rules of the appellant union does number satisfy this requirement of section 19 2 that a fairly large number of workers alleged to be members of the appellant union were in arrears of the subscription for a period of more than three calendar months during the period of six months immediately preceding such time and 3 that some of the new members included as the workers of the appellant union had number paid their admission fees.
The appellant has number companye by special leave to this Court to challenge the order of the Industrial Court.
The appellant union filed its objections to the said application.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Investigating Officer issued numberice dated February 3, 1982 to the appellant union and the Second Respondent intimating that he intends to start the investigation of membership on and from February 8, 1982.
The Investigating Officer accepted the claim of the appellant union and submitted his report to the Industrial Court on March 12, 1982.
Out of 1478 members claimed by the appellant union, 1311 members appeared before the Investigating Officer and 1309 submitted their statements admitting membership of the appellant union.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Even out of those 12 members, two workmen subsequently approached the Investigating Officer and submitted in writing their revised statements stating that they had made their statements that they were members of the respondent union on account of some misunderstanding and they, therefore, desired to change their statements.
me three objections which weighed with the Industrial Court are 1 that the Constitution of the appellant union is at variance with the requirement of clause i of section 19 inasmuch as the requirement of section 19 1 is that the rules of the union must provide that the membership subscription shall number be less than fifty paise per month.
The appellant union filed before the Industrial Court its Subscription Receipt Books, Membership Register, Bank Pass Book, Ledger and Minute Book to prove that the persons claimed by the appellant as its members are In fact its members.
In view of the rival companytentions, it is necessary that the Investigating Officer holds an inquiry and makes a report as to the companyrect claim of membership of each union by interrogating individual members in the presence of one representative of each union.
The appellant in this situation sought the permission of the Industrial Court to adduce evidence to meet the objections sought to be raised before the Industrial Court.
MRTU No.
After hearing both the parties, the Industrial Court felt that it would be impossible for it to receive evidence of approximately 1500 workmen and therefore decided to appoint an Investigating Officer under section 9 of the Act for the purpose of determining the membership of the rival unions and 1013 by its order dated September 11, 1981 appointed an Investigating Officer.
On the other hand, out of 1002 members claimed by the respondent union only 188 appeared before the 1015 Investigating Officer.
The appellant alleged that its membership for the relevant period of six months prior to the date of application stood at the rate of 67 per cent of the total working force.
The appellant union, however, disowned those persons inasmuch as they had number specifically joined the appellant union like members specifically referred in its application for recognition.
4519 of 1985.
R. Seetharaman number present and M.A. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.
Section 11 of the Act envisages that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of number less than thirty per cent of the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised union of such undertaking.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Industrial F Court dated February 8, 1985 arising out of an application under section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
P. Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
The appellant Union moved an application before the Industrial 1012 Court for recognition of its union as a recognised union in respect of the first respondent, Bennet Coleman Company Ltd. In the said application the appellant impleaded besides respondent No.1, respondent No.2, the Times of India and Alled Publications Employees Union operating in the 1st respondent Company and having some membership amongst the workmen employed therein.
The appellant annexed a list of the workmen whom it claimed as its members and a companyy of the Constitution of the appellant union.
