LexMUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA versus BENNET COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 1008 MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENllKf OOLEMAN & <nft>ANY L'.m. & ORS. MAY 6, 1986 [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Preven- tion of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, sections 3( ii), 1 i-t· and 19, scope of construction of labour legislation - Court should adopt a conmonsense construction and where two con- structions are possible, the one which is more rational should be accepted. Estoppel by conduct Respondent giving up the objections before the Investigation Officer appointed by thei Tribunal would be estopped from raising the same before the Tribunal later - New case cannot be carved out by the Tribunal either. Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act, 1971 envisages that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months inmediately preceding the calendar month in"- which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than thirty percent of the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised union of such undertaking. Section 3(ii) of the Act defines i the term "member" Section 19 of the Act obligates that the rules of the Constitution of a union seeking recognition under the Act shall provide for the following matters and the+· provision thereof shall be duly observed by the Union, namely, (i) the membership subscription shall be not less than fifty paise per month; (ii) the Executive Committee shall meet at intervals of not more than three months; (iii) all resolutions passed, whether by the Executive Committee or the General Body of the union, shall be recorded in a Minute Book kept for the purpose; and (iv) an Auditor appointed by the State Government may audit its account at least once in each financial year. ~ The appellant union moved an application before the Industrial Court under section 11 of the Act for recognition • MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN 1009 of its union as a recognised union in respect of the first +respondent company Bennet, Coleman & Company Ltd. and filed its subscription Receipt Books, Membership Register, Bank Pass Book, Ledger and Minute Book Copy of its Constitution etc. to prove that the persona claimed by the appellant as its members (totalling 67 per cent of the total working force) are in fact its members. In the said application, the appellant impleaded respondent No. 2, the Times of India and Allied Publications Employees Union operating in the Respondent No.l c0111pany and ·fiaving some membership amongst the workmen employed therein. The second respondent filed written objections. The Industrial Court felt that it would be impossible for it to receive evidence of approximately lSOO workmen and therefore appointed , an Investigating Officer uru!er section 9 of the Act for the Jopurpose of determining the membership of the rival unions. In T the meeting _held before the Investigating Officer on tt6.10.1981, a unanimous decision was taken by all the parties including the representaties of the second Respondent union wherein it was expressly agreed that only one question will be put to all workmen (i.e.) "In the year 1980 you were a member of which union". It was further agreed upon that in case the workman did not know the name of the union, they would be asked the name of the union leader or of the Committee Member of the Union to which they belong. Although the second ,.ijlespondent had taken a number of pleas both in its preliminary and subsequent written objections it did not raise any such objection before the Investigating Officer and rest content by I putting one question to all the workmen as agreed upon between the parties. The respondent union either gave up other ~ objections or waived the same. After taking the evidence, the " hnvestigating Officer accepted the claim of the appellant-union and submitted his report to the Industrial l_Court on March 12, 1982. The Industrial Court instead of ·yaccepting the report of the Investigating Officer permitted 'the respondent union to raise objections to the grant of the application. The appellant union was refused permission to produce material evidence to meet the objections raised. However, the Industrial Court overruled most of the objections raised, but
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.