VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNION versus SARV SHRAMIK SANGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 25-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNION 
A 
v. 
SARY A SHRAMIK SANGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
labour laws: 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention· of Unfair 
labour Practices Act-Sections I 1 and 12-Application for grant of C 
recognition in 1988 and 2003-Remand of mauer to industrial Court in 
2005, to consider if the Union had membership of not less than 30% of total 
number of employees in six months immediately prior to the month of filing 
of application-Enquiry would be conducted in 2006 and not in 1988 or 
2003-Thus, direction by High Court modified and applications treated to D 
be filed on 1.1.2006-/nvestigations to be conducted accordingly. 
Respondent no. 1 and the appellant filed application under section 11 of 
the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour 
Practices Act for grant of recognition, in 1988 and 2003 respectively. High 
Court remanded the respondent's application to the Industrial Court in 2005 E 
which was to consider whether respondent no. 1 had more than 30% of the 
employees as members in the six months immediately prior to 17.2.1988 and 
with regard to appellant's application, prior to 10.10.2003. The Industrial 
Court is to conduct the enquiry in 2006 and not in 1988 or 2003 and as such 
the same would create confusion. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The direction of the High court is modified to the extent that the 
Industrial Court will decide the application filed by respondent no. I in 1988 
and the appellant in 2003, treating the same to have been filed on 1.1.2006 
and conduct the investigations required under section 12(2) real! with section G 
11 (I) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act for the period of six months immediately preceding 
. 1.1.2006 to determine the membership of the respondent as well as of the 
appellant. (635-B-DI 
633 
H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4256 of2006. 
B 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 23.12.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2375/1993. 
Ramesh Singh, Nikhil Goel and Sheela Goel for the Appellant. 
Bharat Sangal, P.V. Pavaskar, R.R. Kumar. Samyadip Chatterji, V. Pattanaik 
and Suchita Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for both sides. 
The above appeal is limited to the direction of the High Court in the 
impugned judgment and order dt. 23.12.2005 whereby the High Court remanded 
D application (MRTU) No. 8 of 1998 to the Industrial Court, Bombay for a fresh 
decision. It is submitted that as per Section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition 
of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU Act) on 
receipt of an application from a Union for recognition under Section 11 of the 
Industrial Court has to cause notice to be displayed on the notice board of 
the undertaking the date on which it intends to decide the said application. 
E Under Clause (2), the Court can hold an enquiry in the matter before deciding 
the application. Further under Section 11 Clause (I) any Union when it makes 
the application should have membership of not less than 30% of the total 
number of employees, for the whole of the period of six calendar months 
F 
. immediately preceding the calendar month of filing of application. 
In the instant i;ase, respondent No. I (Sarva Shramik Sangh) has filed an 
application No.8 of 1988 on 17 .2.1988 for being granted recognition. Similarly, 
the appellant herein (Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union) filed an 
application No.20 of2003 on 10.10.2003 for being granted recognition. Under 
the impugned direction read with Section 11 of the MRTU Act, the Industrial 
G Court, on remand, will have to consider vis-a-vis the respondent No. I whether 
it had more than 30% of the employees as members in the six months 
immediately prior to 17.2.1988. In the case of the appellant's application, it 
would have to consider whether the appellant had more than 30% of the 
employees as members in the six months immediately prior to 10.10.2003. This 
will clearly create confusion in the matter, especially as the enquiry to be 
H 
VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNION v. SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH [AR. LAKSHMANAN, 1.1635 
conducted by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.