CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD. versus RAM NARESH TRIPATHI

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 16-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD. 
v. 
RAM NARESH TRIPATHI 
DECEMBER 16, 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHIAND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971-{)bject, purpose and application of. 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair C 
Labour Practices Act, 1971-Section 22(ii)--Enquiry under-Whether delin-
quent workman can be represented by an agent of his own chotce, when the 
agent an office bearer of a trade union not of the employees of the Com-
pany-Representation of delinquent under the Certified Standing Orders of 
the Act-Legality of-Whether Section 22(ii) or the Standing Order conflicts 
with the principles of natural justice. 
D 
The workman - respondent was charge-sheeted on November 29, 
1~80 for misconduct, and a domestic enquiry was ordered by appointing 
an enquiry officer. 
The respondent requested the enquiry officer to permit him to be 
defended by one Talraja, an office-bearer of a Mazdoor Union of which the 
respondent was a member. He contended that Talraja was authorised to 
defend members of his Union at domestic enquiries. 
E 
The enquiry officer did not permit the respondent to be represented F 
and defended by Talraja, because he was not a member of the recognised 
or the unrecognised union functioning in the establishment, where the 
respondent was employed. 
Thereupon the respondent did not participate in the enquiry. The 
enquiry officer concluded the enquiry ex-parte. The respondent was dis- G 
missed from service by an order dated January 28, 1981. The respondent 
filed a complaint in the Labour Court making a grievance that the 
employer was guilty of unfair labour practice enumerated at Item l(f) of 
Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Preven-
tion or Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as he was not allowed to be H 
559 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
defended by a person of his own choice in violation of the principles of. 
natural justice. 
The Labour Court dismissing the complaint held that the respon-
dent was not entitled to be defended by Talraja, who was not a member of 
either a recognised or a non-recognised union functioning within the 
B 
undertaking of the appellant-company, and that the dismissal order did 
not suffer from any violation of the principles of natural justice. 
c 
The respondent tiled a Revision Application in the Industrial Court, 
which was also dismissed. 
Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the respondent moved the 
. High Court. 
The High Court quashed the order of dismissal as violative of the 
principles of natural justice and remitted the matter to the Labour Court 
D with a direction to decide on merits-whether or not the misconduct alleged 
against the respondent was proved. 
The High Court held that refusal to permit Talraja to defend the 
respondent amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of 
Item 1 (f) of Schedule IV to the Act as it violated the principles of natural 
E 
justice. 
The employer-appellant preferred this appeal by special leave 
against the order passed by the High Court. 
The respondent contended that the limitation imposed by the Stand-
F 
ing Orders and Section 22(ii) of the Act runs counter to the prin~iples of 
natural justice, and that it violated the right to hearing and a fair trial 
and, must, therefore, be ignored. 
G 
Allowing the appeal of the employer, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions· & 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was enacted to provide 
for the recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for 
certain undertakings; to confer certain powers on unrecognised unions; to 
define and provide for the prevention of certain unfair labour practices; 
H 
to constitute courts for carrying out the purposes of according recognition 
\ 
l.RESCENT DYES & CHEMICALS LTD. v. R.N. TRIPATIII 
561 
to trade unions and for enforcing the provisions relating to unfair prac-
A 
tices and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid. 
f566-C] 
1.2. It is clear from the scheme of the Act that with a view to 
facilitating collective bargaining in certain under-takings, the concept of B 
recognition of trade unions was introduced and certain obligations/rights 
came to be imposed/conferred on the recognised unions. Certain powers 
have also been conferred on unrecognised unions by the Act. (568-

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