1409 of 1986 by two workers who were members of the first respond ent Union and the other, viz.,
The Investigating Officer submitted his report to the Industrial Court on January 21, 1986.
The Industrial Court also held that there was numbersubstance in the objections of the first respondent Union that by treating July 1, 1985 as the cut off date, the workers who were otherwise entitled to vote were deprived of their right to vote and also that the numberice of the ballot which was given to the workers was proper one.
The first respondent Union in its reply of October 7, 1982 companytested the appellant Unions claim and pleaded that it had a membership of about 1400 workers.
Writ Petition No.
On August 19, 1985, the appellant Union made an application to the Industrial Court to hold an inquiry under Section 12 2 of the Act by directing the investigating officer to verify the membership of both the Unions.
In both the petitions, it was alleged that the Industrial Court had violated the provisions of the Act relating to the grant of recognition of the Union by adopting a procedure which was number sanc tioned by it and which was, therefore, illegal and invalid.
1036 out of a total of 1700 workers, i.e., about 69 of the total stength.
However, the said decision was set aside by the High Court and the decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court.
The Industrial Court further granted the request of the appellant Union for cancellation of the recognition of the respondent union.
The union which thus fails to secure majority in the ballot would raise numberobjection for the period of three years to the union thus declared as the recognised union.
On July 29, 1982, the appellant Union filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for being registered itself as a recognised union in place of the first respond ent Union on the ground that it had the largest membership of the workers in the Bhandup undertaking, viz.,
On February 10, 1986, the Indus trial Court passed an order granting recognition to the appellant Union in place of the first respondent Union, under Section 14 of the Act after disposing of the objec tions raised by the first respondent Union.
Both the appellant Union and the first respondent Union furnished with their pleadings the details of their membership.
According ly, a secret ballot was held on January 4, 1986.
The appellant Union secured 798 votes whereas the first respondent Union secured 780 votes.
1776 of 1986 by the first respondent Union.
The companytinu ation of their membership of the union companycerned over a period ensured that their association with the bargaining agent was of a steady and durable character and their alle giance and loyalty to it were number of a fleeting moment but were born of a proper evaluation of all facts.
Writ Petition No.
The result of the ballot showed that in all 1585 workers voted, but only 1578 ballot papers were valid.
On February 11, 1986, the Industrial Court granted a certif icate of recognition to the appellant Union under Section 14 of the Act.
under Section 13 1 vii of the Act as a companysequence of the recognition of the appellant Union.
On the same day, i.e., December 19, 1985, the Industrial Court passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to hold a secret ballot in the premises of the Company within 30 days from the date of the order.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.1988 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. Nos.
Against the said decision, two writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, one, viz.,
On January 30, 1986, the first respondent submitted its objections companytend ing that the cut off date of July 1, 1985 was number companyrect as the employees who were in employment of the Company and whose services were intermittently interrupted were number given an opportunity to exercise their votes, and that there should have been a proper numberification with regard to the date of voting so that the employees who were away companyld have exercised their votes.
On September 5, 1985, the Industrial Court gave directions to the Investigating Offi cer appointed under the Act to assist the Court, to investi gate the membership of both the Unions.
Here ended the first skirmish.
The Industrial Court held that since there was an agreement between the two unions, the procedure adopted to grant recognition to the union under the Act was a valid one.
The first respondent Union, viz.,
Reliance was placed for this purpose on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra General Karngar Union, Bombay v. Mazdoor Congress, Bombay Ors.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellant Union on March 1, 1982 submitted yet another application for cancellation of recognition of the first respondent Union this time under Section 13 1 i of the Act alleging that the recognition was obtained by the first respondent Union by misrepresentation and or fraud, and that it was granted recognition also by mistake.
The Union which would have the majority of the votes would be treated as recognised trade union and the one which fails to get the majority would number raise any tech nicality or objection.
While the Investigating Officer was in the process of verifying the memberships of the two Unions, suggestions were made for deciding by secret ballot as to which of the Unions companymanded the majority.
The fourth respondent Company has two factories, one at Bhandup, Bombay employing about 1700 workers and the other at Aurangabad employing about 1000 workers.
The appellant Union also submitted its draft proposal, at the same time, in more or less the same terms.
The Industrial Court rendered the relief in favour of the appel lant Union.
1597 98 of 1988.
the Association of Engineering Work ers, Bombay obtained a certificate of recognition from Industrial Court, Thane under Section 12 of the Act, on April 7, 1977 for the Companys undertaking at Bhandup.
Ahok K. Gupta, S.J. Deshmukh, Ms. Vrinda Grover and Ms. Bina Gupta for Respondent Nos.
1983 M.L.J. The appellant Union companytested both the petitions company tending that the petitioners there were estopped from challenging the procedure which was adopted by the Industrial Court by companysent of the first respondent Union.
Dr. Y.S. Chitaley and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant.
On October 9, 1981, the appellant Union made an application to the Industrial Court, Thane under Section 13 1 ii of the Act for cancellation of the recognition of the first respondent Union on the ground that the latters membership in the Bhandup Undertaking had fallen below 30 per cent of the total strength of workmen in that Undertaking for the preceding six months.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The present appeals arise out of a battle for recognition between the rival trade unions in proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union Preven tion of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
As per the suggestion, the first respondent Union on December 19, 1985 submitted a draft proposal to the Industrial Court as follows The issue pertaining to recognition of any of the unions be decided by secret ballot and the Investigating Officer be directed to companyduct the same ballot.
In its reply dated November 16, 1981, the first respondent Union refuted the allegation in the application and companytended that its membership was more than 30 per cent for the relevant peri od.
While the first respondent Union was acting as such recog nised union, many of the workers claimed that they had resigned from the said Union and formed a new union called the Automobile Products of India Employees Union which is the appellant Union and registered it on January 7, 1981 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
The appellant Union thereafter started the second battle this time for its own recognition under Section 14 of the Act and the present appeals are an outcome of the said proceedings.
1 to 4.
1409 1776 of 1986.
The employees who were entitled to vote in the ballot were those who were on the rolls of the Company on July 1, 1985, those who joined employment of the Company, thereafter, being disentitled to do so.
