GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH versus ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 16-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH 
A 
v. 
ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 1991 
[K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: Code of Discipline-'lmplementation Machinery-
State Labour Commission-Verification Officer-Who is. 
The appellant, Rourkela Sramik Sangh, is a trade onion in the 
Rourkela Steel Plant. It addressed a letter to the Implementation and c 
.. 
Evaluation Officer-cum-Lahonr Commissioner, under the Code of Dis-
cipline 1958, whereby it sought recognition as the sole bargaining agent 
in the Rourkela Steel Plant. For this purpose, it requested the Labour 
Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the member-
ship of all the trade unions operating in the Plant and to recommend for 
D 
recognition of the union having majority of the membership. The 
Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer 
authorised the Depnty Labour Commissioner to carry out the process of 
verification of the membership of the registered trade unions, who in 
" 
torn passed orders calling upon the different trade unions to produce 
the necessary records. 
E 
The Isl res.pondent-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha-which is a rival 
union, challenged by way of a writ petition the orders passed by the 
Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner. At the 
same time, the appellant union tiled a writ petition seeking a direction 
' 
to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, to 
F 
complete the process of verification and recognition within a stipulated 
time . 
... 
The High Court by its common judgment allowed the Isl respon-
dent's petition and dismissed the appellant's petition. The High Court 
held that since the appellant-Union had addressed its application for 
G 
recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implemen-
talion Officer, the same was not properly made as the Implementation 
... 
Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition. The 
decision of the High Court was based on the finding that the Impler .. c;. -
talion and Evaluation Officer was not the "Implementation Machi-
nery" within the meaning of the Code of Discipline. 
H 
399 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal and directing the Deputy Labour Commis-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
sioner and the Labour Commissioner to complete the proceedings of 
recognition as expeditiously as possible, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The "Implementation Machinery" envisaged in sec-
tion 11 of the Code of Discipline consists of two separate Organisations, 
viz., Implementation Units in the respective Labour Departments, and 
Tripartite Implementation Committees at the Central, State and local 
levels. Each of the Organisations has been assigned different functions 
and they are independent of each other while carrying out the same. 
Thus, the constitutions of the Implementation units and Implementation 
Committee, are different and they function in different areas. [4068-4070] 
(2) Since the Implementation Unit/Implementation Officer en-
trusted with the task of granting recognition to the unions in the State of 
Orissa was the Labour Commissioner of the State, the appellant-Sangh 
had rightly approached the Labour Commissioner for the purpose. [409A] 
(3) Since the State Labour Commissioner was named as the 
Implementation Officer who is none but the officer in charge of the 
Implementation Unit, the State Labour Commissioner as the Impl~men­
tation Officer has an option either to carry out the verification of mem-
bership himself or to entrust it to some other officer like the Deputy 
Labour Commissioner as in the present case. That was only an entrust-
ment of a ministerial work. I 409D] 
(4) The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present case is the 
Verification Officer and under clause (10) of Appendix IV, he ha• to 
send his report to the Implementation Officer or Unit, i.e., the State 
Labour Commissioner, and the State Labour Commissioner will in turn 
communicate his decision as the State Implementation Machinery to the 
management as well as the Unions. [409E] 
( 5) The High Court was wrong in holding that the Implementa-
tion Unit or the Labour Commissioner was not the "Implementation 
Machinery" but only a Verification Officer. [409C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1824 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1990 of the Orissa 
High Colitt in O.J.C. No. 4426 of 1989. 
ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA ISAWANT, J.I

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