Supreme Court Addresses Representation of Unrecognised Unions in Industrial Disputes: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an unrecognized union can represent workers in industrial disputes when there is no recognized union.

CASE TYPE: Industrial Dispute

Case Name: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and Anr.

Judgment Date: 18 July 2017

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9222 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32834 of 2013]
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can an unrecognized trade union represent workers in an industrial dispute if a recognized union is absent? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving Hind Kamgar Sanghatana and Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly its application in Maharashtra, and whether a lack of a recognized union prevents a union from raising disputes on behalf of workers. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The appellant, Hind Kamgar Sanghatana, challenged a judgment that upheld the Industrial Tribunal, Pune’s decision. The Industrial Tribunal had previously ruled that because Hind Kamgar Sanghatana was not a recognized union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, it could not pursue a reference on behalf of the workers. This decision was based on the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it applies in Maharashtra.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Industrial Tribunal, Pune, initially ruled against the appellant, Hind Kamgar Sanghatana, stating that as an unrecognized union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, it could not pursue the reference. The High Court upheld this decision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of whether the appellant could represent the workers in the absence of a recognized union was raised before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court. However, the High Court did not specifically address this issue. Instead of relegating the appellant to a review, the Supreme Court decided to remit the matter to the High Court, given the case’s four-year pendency.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically the first proviso as applicable in the State of Maharashtra. The first proviso to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states:

Provided that no officer of a union shall be entitled to represent any party unless the union is a union recognised by the State Government.

This provision restricts the representation of a party in an industrial dispute to officers of recognized unions. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, provides the framework for recognizing trade unions in the state. The interplay between these two acts determines whether an unrecognized union can represent workers in industrial disputes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no recognized union at the first respondent’s establishment because the registration of the second respondent under the Trade Unions Act had been cancelled.
• The appellant contended that the High Court had failed to address the issue of what happens when no recognized union is available.
• The appellant argued that the issue was raised before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The second respondent argued that their recognition continues despite the cancellation of their registration under the Trade Unions Act.
• The second respondent contended that the issue of the absence of a recognized union was not canvassed before the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but identified the following key question:

1. What happens when there is no recognised union available in an establishment?
2. What happens when there is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary authorities considered were:

• Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
• The Trade Unions Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its first proviso, which restricts representation to officers of recognized unions.
• The Court noted that The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 provides the framework for recognizing trade unions in Maharashtra.
• The Court considered the registration of unions under The Trade Unions Act and the implications of cancellation of registration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s primary concern was that the High Court had not addressed the core issue of what happens when there is no recognized union available. The Supreme Court noted that this point was raised before the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, but it was not specifically addressed by the High Court. The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the matter had been pending for four years. The court decided that instead of relegating the matter to a review, it would be better to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The court also wanted to ensure that the High Court considers all aspects of the issue, including the implications of the cancellation of the second respondent’s registration and the status of registered unions under the Trade Unions Act.

The Supreme Court did not provide a definitive answer to the legal issue. Instead, the Court remitted the matter to the High Court with a request to hear the parties afresh and decide on the point, as to what happens in case there is no recognised union available in an establishment. The Court also directed the High Court to go into other questions, such as what happens when there is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act. The Court clarified that the contentions advanced by the second respondent that their recognition continues despite cancellation of registration is also kept open, to be argued before the High Court. The Court also allowed the applicant-union in I.A. 3 of 2016 to approach the High Court for impleadment.

The Court stated:

“…we find that this was one of the issues raised even before the Industrial Tribunal and the point is seen raised in the High Court as well.”

“Hence, we are of the view that the matter needs to be sent back to the High Court.”

“We also make it clear that the High Court may also go into other questions as to what happens when there is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of addressing the issue of representation in industrial disputes when no recognized union is available.
• The matter has been remitted to the High Court, which is now tasked with determining the legal position.
• The judgment underscores the need for clarity on the rights of unrecognized unions to represent workers in the absence of recognized unions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the parties afresh and decide on the point, as to what happens in case there is no recognised union available in an establishment. The High Court was also directed to consider what happens when there is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act. The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the issue of representation of workers in industrial disputes when no recognized union is available needs to be addressed by the High Court. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the procedure to be followed when such a situation arises.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. is not a final determination on the issue of representation by unrecognized unions. Instead, it directs the High Court to consider the matter afresh, particularly in situations where no recognized union exists. This decision underscores the importance of addressing the gaps in the legal framework regarding the representation of workers in industrial disputes.

Category

Parent Category: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Child Category: Section 36, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Parent Category: Trade Unions Act
Child Category: Registration of Trade Unions
Parent Category: Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Child Category: Recognition of Trade Unions

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. case?
A: The main issue was whether an unrecognized trade union can represent workers in an industrial dispute when there is no recognized union.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court did not give a final decision but sent the case back to the High Court to decide the issue of representation in the absence of a recognized union.

Q: What is the significance of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in this case?
A: Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly its first proviso, restricts the representation of a party in an industrial dispute to officers of recognized unions.

Q: What happens if there is no recognized union in an establishment?
A: The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider this issue and provide a ruling on the same.

Q: What is the next step in this case?
A: The High Court will now hear the case again and decide on the issue of representation by unrecognized unions in the absence of recognized unions.