SHARMIK UTTARSH SABHA versus RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 07-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
SHARMIK UTIARSH SABHA 
v. 
RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND ORS. 
. 
. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1995 
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.] 
Labour Laws : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Preven-
tion of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 : Section 21- Unfair Labour Prac-
tices-Proceedings relating to--Right of representative union-An union other 
than representative union cannot appear in proceedings. 
The first respondent is a public limited company to which the 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 applied, the second respondent is 
A 
B 
c 
a trade union recognised as the representative union for the first respon· 
dent and the appellant is a trade union registered under the provisions of D 
the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 
The first respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court 
alleging the unfair labour practices mentioned in i~ms S and 6 Schedule 
III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of 
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court made an order E 
restraining the commission of the unfair labour practices. The appellant 
moved an application seeking impleadment In the complaint proceedings 
on the ground that employees of the first respondent had sought its meni· 
bership and that the complaint had been (lied by the first respondent In 
collusion with the second respondent. The Industrial Court rejected the 
application. The appellant filed a writ petition in_ the High Court challeng· F 
ing the Industrial Court's order. The High Court dismissed the pe~tion on 
the ground that the second respondent, as the representative union, had 
the sole privilege of representing employees in the industry of the first 
respondent. Aggrieved by 'the High Court's judgment the appellant 
preferred the present appeal. 
G 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the B.I.R. Act and 
the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act operated in different fields; that the former 
_jjd not deal with the subject of unfair labour practices; which was dealt 
with by the latter; M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Ac~ allowed access to courts to 
any union, recognised, representative or otherwise, to any employee to H 
' 
%7 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A ensure that an unfair labour practice was prevented; that since an imrecog· 
nised union could file a complaint, there was nothing incongruous about it 
being heard as a respondent; Section 21 conferred exclusivity only in regard 
to items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and an 
un-recognised union could appear in complaints in respect of all other 
unfair labour practices; and that having regard to the provisions of section 
B 29 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, whereby any order passed would be 
binding on the appellant and its members, they had a right to be heard by 
the Industrial Court before any order could be made against them. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the right of a 
C representative union to represent the employees in the industry to which 
the 8.1.R. Act applied remained unfettered and did not change by reason 
of the fact that the proceedings had been adopted under the M.R.T.U. and 
P.U.L.P. Act. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 21 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade 
Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 states that 
no employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Industrial 
Disputes Act applies shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be 
E represented in any proceeding relating to the unfair labour practices 
specified in Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised 
union. [973-E] 
1.2. It is important to note that the reference is to employees in an 
undertaking to which the Industrial Disputes Act applies and not to 
F employees in an undertaking to which the Bombay Industriai Relations 
Act, 1945 applies. Apart therefrom, the section permits an employee not 
an union other than the recognised union, to so appear. The provisions of 
11ection 21 do notr therefore, lead to the conclusion that" an union other 
than a repr:,esentative union can appear in proceedings relating to all 
G unfair labour practices other than those specified in items 2 and 6 of 
/. 
. 
Schedule IV. [977·8] 
2.1. It is true that an order of the Industrial Court in the concerned 
proceedings wotild bind all employees of the first respondent even though. 
there may be some among them who owe allegiance riot to the re

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