AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner, who was an employee of the third respondent Management has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order
passed by the State Government in G.O.(D) No. 994 Labour and Employment Department, dated 04.11.1999.
By the impugned order, the State Government refused to refer the dispute relating to failure to implement second upgradation along with arrears
in respect of seven workers viz., P. Logan, A. Boopathy (writ petitioner), P. Dinakaran, S. Sambandan, J. Venkatesan, G. Umasankar and K.
Vasudevan. The State Government after referring the failure report sent by the Labour Officer, Vellore dated 04.11.1998, the second respondent
herein and after getting a confidential report from the Commissioner of Labour by the impugned order refused to refer the dispute. The two
reasons assigned for refusal were that the agreement referred to by the workmen dated 01.04.1997 cannot be said to be a settlement within the
meaning of Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act and it cannot be legally enforceable. Secondly, the trade Union namely Tamil Nadu Explosives Industries
Employees Union which raised the dispute is having only 70 workers on its rolls whereas in the third respondent establishment there were totally
962 workers. Since they do not have enough strength to raise a dispute, the dispute is not maintainable.
Subsequent to the refusal, the petitioner who is one of the affected worker sent a representation to the third respondent Management and also
filed a claim statement being C.P. No. 79 of 2002 before the Labour Court. In the claim statement, he claimed wages as per the settlement. The
Labour Court, after trial, by an order dated 23.03.2004 dismissed the CP. It held that since the upgradation was not given by way of settlement,
the worker has no right to claim the said upgradation and therefore, it refused to grant the wages payable on account of any notional upgradation.
The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order passed in the CP. But on the contrary, in the absence of his trade union, he himself has chosen
to challenge the impugned order declining the reference. He has also filed an additional affidavit together with additional typed set.
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Government requires any revision. In normal
circumstances, even a minority union can raise a dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act as held by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals Limited v. Their
Workmen reported in 1978 1 LLN 547. But subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Trade Unions Act has undergone an
amendment by amendment Act 31/2001 with effect from 09.01.2002. By the amendment made, the present Section 4 reads as follows:-
Mode of Registration.- [(1)] Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade Union and
by otherwise complying with the provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union under this Act.
[Provided that no Trade Union of Workmen shall be registered unless atleast ten per cent or one hundred of the workmen, whichever is less,
engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is connected are the members of such trade union on the date of making of
application for registration:
Provided further that no Trade Union of workmen shall be registered unless it has on the date of making application not less than seven persons as
its members, who are workmen engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is connected.]
Likewise, even the Industrial Disputes Act has been amended and Section 2(qq) has been introduced. A trade union means ""a trade union
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926."" The said amendment has come into force by Central Act 46 of 1982 with effect from 21.08.1984.
Therefore, the intention of the legislature is that a trade union in order to exist should have a minimum of 10 persons. In the present case, the State
Government has given reasons for declining the reference and hence, no fault can be found with. Even otherwise, the aggrieved person namely the
Trade Union is not before this Court and it is only one of the worker who has come up with this writ petition.
Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.