TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WORKERS UNION versus TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 09-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 723 
TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WORKERS UNION 
v. 
TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 6394 of 2010) 
AUGUST 9, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND H.L. 
GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
A 
B 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971: 
C 
s. 2(3) -
Tata Memorial Centre -
'Appropriate 
Government' for -Determination of - Held: State Government 
is the 'appropriate government' for Tata Memorial Centre for 
the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act and MRTU and PULP 
0 
Act - TMC cannot be held to be functioning under authority 
of the Central Governmen.t - Property dedicated to TMC will 
be deemed to be vested in the Governing Council of TMC-
Society though Central Government has not transferred it to 
the Society- Day to day affairs of TMC and its property funds, 
E 
employment of its staff and their conditions of service are 
administered and controlled by the Governing Council of 
TMC -
Evidence establishes independent functioning of 
TMC under its Governing Council - Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 - s. 2(a) - Labour laws. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 2(a) - Appropriate 
Government - Concept of - Explained. 
F 
The appellant is a trade union registered under the 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention 
G 
of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. 
Act, in short), and the employees of respondent no. 1 are 
the members of the appellant-trade union. Respondent 
no. 2-workers association is another trade union 
723 
H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A functioning under respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 
filed applications before the industrial court seeking 
cancellation of the recognition of the appellant union u/ 
s. 13 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and seeking its 
substitution in place of the appellant union u/s. 14 of the 
8 M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Respondent no. 1 raised an 
objection in the written statement that the 'appropriate 
government' for respondent no. 1 was the Central 
Government and not the State Government and, 
therefore, the proceedings under the M.R.T.U. and 
c P.U.L.P. Act, were not maintainable. The industrial court 
held that the 'appropriate government' for respondent no. 
1 was the State Government and not the Central 
Government; and the applications filed by respondent 
no. 2 were held to be maintainable under the Act, though 
0 the first application was not pressed and the second 
application was dismissed on merits. Respondent no. 1 
filed a writ petition. T.he Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the same. The Division Bench of the High 
Court allowed the appeal holding that the Central 
Government was the 'appropriate government' for 
E respondent no. 1 establishment for the purposes of 
application of s. 2(3) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act read 
with s. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947; and the 
applications filed by respondent no. 2 were not 
maintainable. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant 
F appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Respondent no. 1 establishment cannot be 
G held to be functioning under the authority of the Central 
Government. The State Government is the appropriate 
Government for respondent no. 1 for the purposes of 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. 
Act, 1971. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High 
H 
TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WORKERS UNION v. 
725 
TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE 
Court cannot be sustained. The two applications filed by 
A 
respondent no. 2 would be maintainable under M.R.T.U. 
and P.U.L.P. Act. The order of the industrial court holding 
them to be maintainable but dismissing them on merits 
is correct. [Para 64] [771-C-F] 
B 
2. Entry 22 in list Ill (Concurrent List) of the Seventh 
Schedule to the Constitution of India relates to 'Trade 
Unions; industrial and Labour disputes'. Entry 23 
thereunder is 'social security and social insurance; 
employment and unemployment'. Entry 24 is 'welfare of C 
labour including conditions of work, provident fund, 
employer's liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity 
and old age pensions and maternity benefits'. Subject to 
the provisions contained in clauses (1) and (2) in Article 
246, the Legislature of a State can also make laws on 
these subjects, and this is how the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. 
D 
Act 1971 makes provisions for recognition of trade unions 
for collective bargaining, and for prevention of unfair 
labour practices. It 

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