ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS versus S.D. RANE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 22-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS 
v. 
S.D. RANE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practice Act, 1971: 
A 
B 
Section 14--Recognition of trade union-Procedure adopted by the C 
Investigating Officer-Cliallenged by a group of workers-Report of Investigat-
ing Officer accepted by Industrial Court and High Court did not interfere with 
the same-On appeal held, under S.14 fresh application is prohibited for two 
years-Making application within one year from the date of order passed by 
the Indust1ial Tribunal also prohibited-Since the order of the Tribunal was 
passed in 1983 and sufficient time has elapsed, the embargo under S. 14 no D 
longer available-Appellant Union if still seeks recognition it would be open 
to it to adopt such procedure as is available under the law. 
Automobile Products of India Employees' Union v. Association of 
Engineering Workers Bombay, [1990] 2 SCC 444 and Association of En-
E 
gineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union & Ors., [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 
544, relied ~n. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 
'1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.83 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 3038 of 1983. 
Narain Shethey, Manoj Wad, Ms. J.S. Wad and Ms. Usha Reddy for 
the Appellants. 
R.K. Habbu, P.B. Agrawala, Satish Agrawala for the Respondent No. 
3. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leavl! arises from the order of the Division H 
979 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Bench of the Bombay High Court made on September 7, 1983 in W.P. No. 
3038 of 1983. The appellant is a rival trade union under M/s. Chemicals & 
Fibers of India Ltd. [formerly ICI India Ltd.]. The Industrial Court in the 
order had pointed out that the total employees as on June 15, 1981 were 
811 and the respondent-union had a strength of 448 as against the appel-
B 
lant-rival union having strength of 241. Thus it was held to be a recognised 
union. The appellant had challenged the procedure adopted by the inves-
tigating officer under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (1 of 1971) (for short, 
'MRTUPULP Act'). 
C 
Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel for the appellant, contended 
that the Investigating Officer was not justified in law in conducting spot 
verification and calling employees.either by alternate number and verifying 
the same and that the procedure, therefore, was clearly illegal. It is not in 
dispute that the investigation requires to be done by the investigating 
D officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. This 
Court in Automobile Products of India Employees' Union v. Association of 
Enginee1ing Wo1kers Bombay, [1990] 2 SCC 444 had held that the scheme 
relating to the recognition was to be done in accordance with the Act. Even 
if the parties consented to identify the number of employees in the Com-
pany by secret ballot, that method was not warranted by law and consent 
E 
did not cure the illegality of substitution of .a procedure not prescribed 
under the Act. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Association 
of Engineeling W01kers v. Dockyard Labour Union & Ors., [1995] Supp. 4 
SCC 544. Consequently, the investigating office is required to conduct 
investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 
F 
In this case, the Industrial Court had directed the investigating 
officer by his order dated November 17, 1980 to give opportunity to .the 
parties and then to conduct the enquiry in terms of its previous order dated 
October 5, 1979. In furtherance thereof, the investigating officer called 
upon the appellant as well as the respondent-Union to submit the list of 
G members of the respective associations, he initially had verified the lists 
and thereafter made spot verification that the basis. He submitted a report 
stating that "as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Member, Industrial 
Court, the undersigned conducted the enquiry on the spot in the presence 
of the ~o representatives of each union and members of the non-applica-
H tion employees." This report of the total number of respective unions was 
ASSN. OF CHEMICAL WORKERS v. S.D. RANE 
981 
accepted by the Industrial Court and upheld no doubt not by a very A 
reasoned order, by the summary order. The Division Bench did not inter-
fere after peru

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.