POONA EMPLOYEES UNION versus FORCE MOTORS LIMITED & ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 01-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 11 S.C.R. 935 
POONA EMPLOYEES UNION 
v. 
FORCE MOTORS LIMITED &ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10130-10131 of2010) 
DECEMBER 1, 2015 
A 
B 
[V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Regulation of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-ss.11, 12, c 
14, 19 - Status of recognized Union under- Determination 
of eligibility cum suitability of a Union - Application by 
appellant Union before the Industrial Court for being 
registered as a recognized Union in place of an existing · 
recognized Union (BKS Union) in the undertaking- Industrial D 
Court referring to the report of the Investigating Officer and 
the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant Union held that 
the appellant Union was entitled to be conferred the status of 
recognized Union since it had more than 30% of membership 
of the total employees of the Company as well as larger E 
membership than the membership of BKS Union during the 
period, andthere was compliance of ss. 11, 14and19-High 
Court held that the appellant Union was not eligible under 
the Act to be conferred the status as recognized Union and 
set aside the decision of the Industrial Court - Interference F 
with - Held: Not called for...:. View taken by High Court is 
plausible and rational being based on a logical analysis of 
the materials on record and the law applicable - Report of 
the Investigating Officer clearly reveals that the contribution G 
collected from the members of the appellant Union had not 
been deposited in its bank account - Vital informations is 
prescribed form pertaining to the claim of membership of 
appellant Union, in order to wrestthe title of recognized union 
H 
935 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
from an existing rival Union enjoying the said status, not 
furnished -
Dehors the affidavits, the evidence or the 
materials laid by the appellant Union are not overwhelmingly 
determinative of its claim of majority membership as required 
uls. 11, 12, and 14 - AdjudicatiQn on the issue of deduction 
B of bonus amount by the company for adjustment against the 
membership fee of BKS in the background perlaining thereto 
does not conclusively clinch the cause in favour of the 
appellant Union -
The analysis and evaluation of the 
materials on record as underlaken by the High Court cannot 
C be denounced as illogical, irrational or uncalled for. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a cogent reading of Sections 9, 11, 
o 12, 13, 14, 19, 30 of the Maharashtra Regulation of Trade 
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 
1971, it is abundantly and predominantly clear that the 
exercise of examining an application of a union in an 
undertaking seeking the status of recognized union 
E whether by replacing an existing recognized union or 
not, is neither a routine ritual n"or an idle formality. Not 
only the applicant-union has to be eligible to apply as 
per the prescriptions with regard to the extent of 
membership it has to command for the relevant period, 
F its application has to be bona fide in the interest of the 
employees and it must not have indulged in any activity 
of instigating, aiding or assisting, the commencement 
or continuation of a strike during the said period. The 
detailed procedure in both the eventualities, as 
G ccntemplated in Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, enjoins a 
participating enquiry to verily ascertain the membership 
pattern of the rival unions, and also the existence or 
otherwise of th~ disqualifying factors as stipulated by 
H the Act. [Para.46][966-B-E] 
-. 
POONA EMPLOYEES UNION v. FORCE MOTORS 
937 
LIMITED &ANOTHER 
1.2 The report of the Investigating Officer clearly A 
reveals that the cQntribution collected from the members 
of the appellant union had not been deposited in its bank 
account. This finding is based on a scrutiny of the original 
records of the appellant union. Though the then 
President of the appellant union, in his testimony claimed B 
that the membership fee had been duly deposited in the 
bank, he conceded that no complaint had been made 
against the Investigating Officer for incorporating a 
finding contrary thereto. No overwhelming evidence was 
also produced to counter this finding. This witness C 
admitted as well that the accounts of the appellant union 
were not being audited by a Chartered Accountant, 
appointed by the Government which per se is also in 
repudiation of the mandate of Section 19(iv) of the Act. 0 
This 

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