LexG.S. DHARA SINGH versus E.K. THOMAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A G.S. OHARA SINGH v. E.K. THOMAS & ORS. AUGUST 9, 1988 B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] Trade Unions Act, 1926: Sections 15 and 18 Trade Union- Worker resigning from membership-Whether entitled to ask for ··' account and claim refund of amounts received by trade union fr.om management. ·' c Civil Procedure Code.1908, Section 9. Central Trade Union Regulations 1938, Regulation ll(i). Civil suit by worker,,,....Against office bearers of Trade Union- Claiming refund_ of amounts received.by Union from management- D Maintainability of. The terms and conditions of service including the rates of wages and other allied matters were decided and settled through mutual negotiations between the trade union represented by respondent No. 3, its General Secretary and respondent No. 4, President of the Employers E Association. Respondent Nos. I and 2 were workers and were mem- bers of the trade union. Under an agreement entered into in October, 1973 an amount equivalent to IO paise out of every rupee earned by the workers was deducted by the management towards the gratuity fund and transferred p to the trade union for and on behalf of the workers. Under another agreement a sum equivalent to IO paise per rupee in the wages of the workers was paid by the management to the trade union towards acci- dent benefit fund of which the ~orkers were the beneficiaries. The amounts so collected were entrusted to the petitioner, who was also the treasurer and custodian of these funds of the· tr~de union. The G petitioner deposited. the amounts received by him in his personal name in his bank account, and no account of these amounts was rendered by him to the members of the trade union. He did not call any general body meeting and the members of the trade union could not ventilate their grievance regarding mismanagement of the funds. H In view of the aforesaid difficulty, 85 workers including Respon- 258 ' I G.S. DHARA v. E.K. THOMAS 259 dent Nos. 1 and 2 and three others resigned from this trade union on A Jannary 13, 1976, and formed a separate trade onion of their own and registered the same under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and three other persons instituted five suits in the Munsiff Court against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for a decree directing the petitioner and respondent No. ,3 .to render an account of the amounts collected on their behalf from December, 1969 towards the accident benefit fund and from October, 1973' towards the gratuity fund. The petitioner who was the President and the Treasurer of. the trade union resisted the suits and contended that since the plaintiffs had resigned and ceased to be members of the trade union they had no right to claim the refund of the sums due to them from out of the funds of the trade union and that the suits were not maintainable in the Civil Courts in view of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. All these suits were tried together 'and the Munsiff passed a pre- liminary decree against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 directing them to render an account of the amounts received by them, and further directed that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to get his propor· tionate share of the amount due to him from out of the total amount received by the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Additional Sub-Judge found that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had received from the management amounts on behalf of the workmen, but held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree at the hands of the Civil Court since the suits were not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.. . Second Appeals were filed in the High Court by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the High Court by-a common judgment set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the judg- ment and decree passed by the Trial Court.· In the appeal by Spe,cial Leave to this Court it was contended that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and.the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 have debarred the filing of. the 1 suit, that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could not claim the amount after resigning from B c D E F G H A B 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. the membership of the trade union as the said a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.