AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
The 1st petitioner being a Federation of Trade Unions, apart from itself being a Trade Union is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926; it is affiliated to All India Bank Officers' Confederation ( AIBOC); it claims to espouse the cause of officers of the 1st respondent-bank; 2nd petitioner claims to be the Vice President, of the Corporation Bank Officers' Organization (hereafter 'CBOO') & nominated Chairman of the Executive Committee of CBOO; petitioners are knocking at the doors of writ court inter alia for a direction to the 1st respondent-bank not to act upon the letter dated 22.04.2021 at Annexure-O wherein the request is made as under:
"In view of the above, we request you to instruct the concerned to reverse check of for CBOO members as in August, 2020 and merge it with Union Bank Adhikari Sangh with effect from the salary of April, 2021. In case salary process already begun, the subscription amount deducted at the existing rates may be credited to the account of Union Bank Adhikar Sangh (UBAS). Then May, 2021 onwards the subscription amount will be Rs.100/- as it is done for UBAS members".
Petitioners have also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent-bank not to meddle with the obligations undertaken in terms of the unanimous decision of the Executive Committee in the meeting held on 08.08.2020 as communicated on 19.09.2020 and further not to make any changes in the nature of recognition of Unions.
The respondents having entered appearance through their advocates oppose the writ petition; respondent nos. 2 & 3 have filed a lengthy Statement of Objections resisting the writ petition essentially contending that there is no merger of the membership of the CBOO and no such decision was taken by the general body of the CBOO on 08.08.2020; the Executive Committee of the CBOO does not have power to amalgamate the Union; they also contend that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, namely the CBOO and that there cannot be merger or amalgamation of the Trade Unions without following the mandatory procedure prescribed inter alia under Sec.24 of the 1926 Act; thus the name of the CBOO cannot be changed except in accordance with the mandate of Sec.23 which requires consent of not less than two thirds of the total membership of CBOO and subject to other restrictions enacted in Sec.25; they also argued about Bench Hunting tactics of the petitioners; so contending all they seek dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Shorn of thickness of the writ petition book and the Statement of Objections, the essential grievance of the petitioners is structured on the premise of amalgamation/merger of the members of the CBOO with the federation in question; however an amalgamation or merger of the kind can be done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Sec.24 of the 1926 Act; no material worth considering is produced to prima facie establish that there was such an amalgamation or merger of the Trade Unions in question, as rightly contended by the learned advocates appearing for the contesting respondents.
(b) Selig Perlman, in "The Principles of Collective Bargaining" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 154-59 (March 1936) justifies the formation of Trade Unions as a means of collective bargaining as under:
"Collective Bargain is not just a means for raising wages and improving conditions of employment. Nor is it merely democratic government in industry. It is above all a technique whereby an inferior social class or group exerts a never- slackening pressure for a bigger share in social sovereignty, as well as for more welfare and greater security and liberty."
(c) About amalgamation of Trade Unions, learned author K D Srivastava in his "The Law Relating to Trade Unions in India" 2nd Edn., (Eastern Book Company), at Page 379, writes:
"The word 'amalgamation' has no definite legal meaning. It contemplates a state of things under which two unions are so joined together as to form a third entity or one union is absorbed into and blended with another company. There is no need to dissolve the unions and then to amalgamate. The rights of the various officers or members of the union would be defined in the instrument which evidences the amalgamation."
The pleaded case of the parties has to be treated in the light of the above observations of the jurists & the provisions of the social welfare legislation, namely, the 1926 Act.
(d) Schematically, Sec.24 of the Act prescribes a mandatory procedure to be followed by the Trade Unions which seek their amalgamation, or merger of the one into another; it requires votes of at least one half of the members of each of the Trade Unions and further, at least 60% of the collective votes of both is in favour of the proposal for amalgamation/merger; even to change the name of a registered Trade Union, the consent of two thirds of the total number of its members is prescribed by Sec.23; further, Sec.25 requires that change of name or amalgamation should be notified to the Registrar of Trade Unions; without registration, no amalgamation or merger will be effective vide SHEET IRON WORKERS AND LIGHT PLATES SOCIETY Vs. BOILERMAKERS' AND IRON AND STEEL SHIPBUILDERS' SOCIETY, 40 T.L.R. 294.
(e) It hardly needs to be stated that the Trade Unions are bodies corporate; where amalgamation takes place arguably, they lose their individual identity and acquire a new one, although their individual rights & obligations, subject to all just exceptions become those of the amalgamated entity; in the absence of any cogent material being placed on record, the writ court cannot readily assume that there was an amalgamation or merger of the Trade Unions concerned, and grant relief of the kind to the petitioner on such assumption; the amalgamation & merger are a serious matter and therefore presumption as to the same cannot be raised for an askance; an argument to the contrary would risk the identity and perpetuity of the Trade Unions as bodies corporate repugnant to the State Policy enacted in the 1926 Act and Rules promulgated thereunder.
(f) Mr. Phadke, learned advocate appearing for respondents 2 & 3 is more than justified in contending that the right to take decision about amalgamation or merger lies with the general body of the CBOO and that both the Trade Unions concerned have to pass an appropriate resolution in the General Body Meeting with the prescribed percentage of votes; the version of the petitioners that the consensus for amalgamation was secured by referendum does not gain acceptance.
(g) The vehement submission of learned Sr. Adv. Mr.K.Subba Rao appearing for the petitioners is that the amalgamation or merger of Trade Unions is different from the merger of members of one Trade Union into another, is a bit difficult to countenance; firstly, such an idea is not consistent with the scheme envisaged by the 1926 Act; secondly, there is no material evidencing the merger of the members of one Trade Union into another; thirdly, whether the members of CBOO enbloc merged into the petitioner federation, cannot be causally answered on the basis of frugal material placed on record; as already stated above, the questions of this nature have to be treated with due seriousness which a gynecologist exhibits while severing the umbilical chord existing between the new born from its mother.
(h) There is a lot of force in the vehement submission of Mr. Narayana Bhat & Mr. Vikram Phadke appearing for the contesting respondents that the questions of law & facts arising from the writ petition cannot be addressed without CBOO being a party eo nomine to the petition; the relief sought for in the petition if granted would adversely affect the identity and continuity of CBOO, which going by the very alternate contention of Mr. Subba Rao, has not merged into the federation; though a contention as to non-joinder of necessary party has been taken up in the Statement of Objections filed by respondent nos. 2 & 3, the petitioners have not chosen to implead the CBOO as a respondent, nor have they offered any plausible explanation for non-impleadment nor have they shown any difficulty in seeking impleadment; it has long been a settled position of law that in the absence of a necessary party, court cannot effectively adjudicate the lis and consequently cannot grant the relief.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.