AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION versus ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 27-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION 
A 
v. 
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS, BOMBAY 
----
AND ORS. 
MARCH 27, 1990 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of 
Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971: Sections 10-15 and 19-Trade 
Union seeking recognition-Duty of Industrial Court-Secret ballot-
Not the method for granting recognition. 
c 
--
Labour Law-Trade Union-Recognition of-Matter of utmost 
interest to all workmen in the undertaking, industry and society-Mere 
satisfaction of membership qualification-No ground. 
,>-
Practice and Procedure: Consent of parties to follow procedure 
D 
-
which is against mandatory provisions of statute-Cannot cure the 
illegality. 
The fourth respondent, a company had two factories in the State of 
Bombay. The first respondent-Union obtained a certmcate of recogni-
tlon from the Industrial Court under section 12 of the Maharashtra 
E 
~ 
Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 
Act, 1971 for one of the company's undertakings. While it was acting as 
such recognised union, many of the workers claimed that they had 
resigned from the said union and formed a new union, the appelblat- .. 
---
Union had it registered on January 7, 1981. 
.., 
F 
~ 
The Appellant-Union made an application to the Industrial Court 
under Section 13(l)(ii) on October 9, 1981 for cancellation of the 
recognition of the first respondent-Union on the grond that the latter's 
membership in the undertaking had fallen below 30 per cent of the total 
strength or workmen in the undertaking for the preceeding six months . 
. The allegations were refuted by the first respondent-Union and it was 
G 
further contended that its membership was more than 30 per cent for 
the relevant period. 
.;; 
Another application was submitted by the appellant-Union on 
March 1, 1982 for cancellation of the recognition of the first res-
pondent-Union under Sectionl3(1)(ii) alleging that the recognition was 
H 
177 
A 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
obtained by misrepresentation and/or fraud, and that it was also 
granted recognition by mistake. The Industrial Court rendered the 
relief in favour of the appellant-Union, but the said decision was set 
aside by the High Court, and confirmed by this Court. 
After sometime the appellant-Union moved an application under 
B 
~ection 14 for being registered itself as a recognised union in place of the 
first respondent-Union on the ground that it had the largest member-
ship of the workers in the undertaking, i.e. about 69% of the total 
strength. This claim was contested by the first respondent-Union, in its 
reply, and it was pleaded that it had a membership of 1400 workers. 
Details of membership were furnished by the parties with their plead-
ings and an application was made by the appellant-Union to the Indust-
C rial Conrt to hold an enquiry under section 12(2) by directing the 
Investigating Officer to verify the membership of both the Unions. 
The Industrial Court thereupon gave directions to the Investigat-
ing Officer appointed under the Act to investigate the membership of 
o both the Union. 
While the investigation was in progress, both the Unions submit-
ted draft proposals to the following effect: 
(1) The issue pertaining to recognition of any of the Unions be deci-
E ded by secret ballot and the Investigating Officer be directed to conduct the 
same ballot; (2) 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 not raise any technicality or objection and (3) 
The union which fails to secure majority in the ballot would raise no 
objection for the period of three years to the union thus declared as the 
F 
recognised union. 
The Industrial Court directed the Investigating Officer to hold a 
secret ballot in the premises of the Company and the employees who 
were entitled to vote in the ballot were those who were on the rolls of the 
Company on July 1, 1985. A secret ballot was held and the appellant'. 
G 
Union secured 798 votes whereas the first respondent-Union secured 780 
votes. 
The first respondent-Union submitted objections contending that 
_j-
the cut-off date of July 1, 1985 was not correct as the employees who 
were in employment of the Company and whose services were intermit-
H tently interrupted were not given an opportunity to exercise their votes • 
• 
>-
AUTOMOBILE PR

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