Supreme Court of India
GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGHversusROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 106
- Decided
- 16 April 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K N SINGH
Holding
The "Implementation Machinery" under Section II of the Code of Discipline comprises both Implementation Units in labour departments and tripartite Implementation Committees, and the State Labour Commissioner, as head of the Implementation Unit, is the proper Implementation Officer with authority to initiate and oversee union recognition, delegating verification to the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
Summary
The Rourkela Sramik Sangh applied to the State Labour Commissioner, who also acted as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer, seeking recognition as the sole bargaining agent in the Rourkela Steel Plant and requesting verification of union memberships. The Labour Commissioner authorized the Deputy Labour Commissioner to carry out the verification, which was challenged by the rival Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha before the Orissa High Court. The High Court held that the Implementation Officer was not part of the "Implementation Machinery" under the Code of Discipline and dismissed the Sangh's petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of "Implementation Machinery" in Section II of the Code of Discipline, concluding that it consists of both Implementation Units in labour departments and tripartite Implementation Committees. The Court held that the State Labour Commissioner, as the head of the Implementation Unit, is the proper Implementation Officer with authority to initiate union recognition and may delegate verification to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the verification, and ordered the Labour Commissioner to finalize the recognition process promptly. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- What is the meaning of "Implementation Machinery" under the Code of Discipline, 1958?
- Whether the State Labour Commissioner, as Implementation Officer, has authority to initiate the union recognition process.
- Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner can act as Verification Officer under the Implementation Machinery.
Legislation cited
- Code of Discipline, 1958s. Appendix IV (clause 10), s. Section II
Subjects
labour lawunion recognitionimplementation machineryCode of Disciplineverification officerstate labour commissionertripartite implementation committee
Judgment
GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH A
v.
ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS.
APRIL 16, 1991
B
[K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]
Labour Law: Code of Discipline-'lmplementation Machinery-
State Labour Commission-Verification Officer-Who is.
The appellant, Rourkela Sramik Sangh, is a trade onion in the
Rourkela Steel Plant. It addressed a letter to the Implementation and c
. Evaluation Officer-cum-Lahonr Commissioner, under the Code of Dis-
cipline 1958, whereby it sought recognition as the sole bargaining agent
in the Rourkela Steel Plant. For this purpose, it requested the Labour
Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the member-
ship of all the trade unions operating in the Plant and to recommend for
D
recognition of the union having majority of the membership. The
Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer
authorised the Depnty Labour Commissioner to carry out the process of
verification of the membership of the registered trade unions, who in
torn passed orders calling upon the different trade unions to produce
" the necessary records.
E
The Isl res.pondent-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha-which is a rival
union, challenged by way of a writ petition the orders passed by the
Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner. At the
same time, the appellant union tiled a writ petition seeking a direction
to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, to
' complete the process of verification and recognition within a stipulated F
time .
...
The High Court by its common judgment allowed the Isl respon-
dent's petition and dismissed the appellant's petition. The High Court
held that since the appellant-Union had addressed its application for
recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implemen- G
talion Officer, the same was not properly made as the Implementation
... Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition. The
decision of the High Court was based on the finding that the Impler.. c;. -
talion and Evaluation Officer was not the "Implementation Machi-
nery" within the meaning of the Code of Discipline.
H
399
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeal and directing the Deputy Labour Commis-
sioner and the Labour Commissioner to complete the proceedings of
recognition as expeditiously as possible, this Court,
HELD: (1) The "Implementation Machinery" envisaged in sec-
tion 11 of the Code of Discipline consists of two separate Organisations,
B
viz., Implementation Units in the respective Labour Departments, and
Tripartite Implementation Committees at the Central, State and local
levels. Each of the Organisations has been assigned different functions
and they are independent of each other while carrying out the same.
Thus, the constitutions of the Implementation units and Implementation
Committee, are different and they function in different areas. [4068-4070]
c
(2) Since the Implementation Unit/Implementation Officer en-
trusted with the task of granting recognition to the unions in the State of
Orissa was the Labour Commissioner of the State, the appellant-Sangh
had rightly approached the Labour Commissioner for the purpose. [409A]
D
(3) Since the State Labour Commissioner was named as the
Implementation Officer who is none but the officer in charge of the
Implementation Unit, the State Labour Commissioner as the Impl~men
tation Officer has an option either to carry out the verification of mem-
bership himself or to entrust it to some other officer like the Deputy
Labour Commissioner as in the present case. That was only an entrust-
E
ment of a ministerial work. I409D]
(4) The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present case is the
Verification Officer and under clause (10) of Appendix IV, he ha• to
send his report to the Implementation Officer or Unit, i.e., the State
Labour Commissioner, and the State Labour Commissioner will in turn
F communicate his decision as the State Implementation Machinery to the
management as well as the Unions. [409E]
(5) The High Court was wrong in holding that the Implementa-
tion Unit or the Labour Commissioner was not the "Implementation
Machinery" but only a Verification Officer. [409C]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1824
of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1990 of the Orissa
High Colitt in O.J.C. No. 4426 of 1989.
H
ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA ISAWANT, J.I 401
Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant. A
I
Gobind Das, S.B. Upadhyay, Harish Salve, Ms. Kirti Misra and
"' S.R. Grover for the Respondents.
· The J odgment of the Court was delivered by
SAWANT, J. Leave granted.
2. The only question which falls for consideration in the present
case is-what is the meaning of "Implementation Machinery" within
the meaning of the Code of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as the
"Code") ratified by all Central Employers' and Workers' Organisa- C
tions at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May
1958 and which came into force from June 1, 1958. The question
assumes importance in the present case because the High Court by the
impugned decision has held that since the appellant-Union had addres-
sed iis application for recognition not to the Implementation Machi-
nery but to the Implementation Officer, the same was not properly lJ
made and the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate the
process of recognition.
3. The admitted facts are that the appellant Rourkela Sramik
Sangh had addressed a letter on October 9, 1989 to the Implementa-
tion and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Comissionner-Orissa, E
Cuttack intimating him that as per the Code it had called upon the
Rourkela Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent in the
Plant, but that the Plant had not replied to the same. The appellant in
the said letter had further requested the Labour Commissioner to pass
orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade
unions operating in the said Plant and to recommend for recognition, F
the Union having majority of the membership. On receipt of this
request, the Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evalua-
tion Officer authorised the Deputy Labour Commissioner on Decem-
ber 5, 1989 to carry out the process of verification of the membership
of the registered trade unions. ·In pursuance of the same, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner passed an order on December 14, 1989 calling G
upon the different trade unions to produce the necessary records
within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. These orders passed by the
Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were chai-
lenged by the 1st respondcnt-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha which is a
rival union in the Plant by way of a Writ Petition being OJC No. 4426
of 1989 in ihe High Court of Orissa. At the same time; the appeliant- H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 2 S.C.R.
Union filed a Writ Petition being OJC No. 361 of 1990 seeking a
A
direction to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Com-
missioner to complete the verification of the membership of the
Unions and to fix a time-limit to complete the process and recognition
and for ancillary reliefs. Both the writ petitions were heard together by
a Division Bench of the High Court and by its impuged common judg-
B ·ment, the Court was pleased to allow the 1st respondent's petition and
dismiss the appellant's petition. The decision of the Court was based
only on the finding that the Implementation and Evaluation Officer
was not the "Implementation Machinery" under the Code and the
Implementation Officer had no authority to process the application for
recognition.
c 4. The relevant provisions of the Code are as follows:
Section II of the Code deals with "Implementation Machinery"
and is headed as such. It begins as follows:
D "2. To implement the Code of Discipline, labour enact-
ments, awards and agreements, a separate machinery has
been set up at the Centre and in all States. This machinery ii
comprises:
(a) implementation units in Labour Departments, and
E
(b) tripartite implementation committees at the Central,
State and local levels."
Thereafter it proceeds to deal with Implementation Units and states as
follows:
F
"(i) Implementation Units:
3. A Central Implementation and Evaluation Division has
been set up in the Ministry of Labour and Employment
under the charge of a Joint Secretary. In the States also,
G Implementation Units have been set up under the charge of
either a whole-time officer of the Labour Department or of
the State Labour Commissioners. According to the recom-
mendations of the Labour Ministers' Conference held in
January, 1960 the Implementation Officer in each State
should, as far as possible, he whole-time and of sufficient
H seniority. The following functions have been assigned to
ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA [SAWANT, J.] 403
Implementation Units:
A
(1) to ensure Implementation of the Code of Discipline,
Code of Conduct, labour enactments, awards, agreements,
etc., with a view to reducing at the source the main cause of
industrial strife;
B
(2) to supplement the work of the Industrial Relations
Machinery in taking preventive action where disputes are
brewing and in settling long pending disputes which could
not be settled otherwise;
(3) to maintain liaison with Central, State or local units, as
the case may be, to ensure effective working of the c
implementation machinery;
(4) to arrange meetings of Implementation Committees
and to function as their Secretariat;
D
(5) to bring about out-of-court settlement of-cases pending
in High Courts and the Supreme Court;
(6) to ensure that cases are screened by the Screening
Committees set up by the Central Employers' and Wor-
kers' Organisations before appeals are filed in higher courts; E
(7) to evaluate;
(a) major strikes, lock-outs and disputes in order to fix
responsibility for them, and
F
(b) the working of important labour legislations, awards,
policies, decisions, etc. in order to see how far they have
produced the results which they were intended to produce
and suggest measures to improve them.
(8) to collect and maintain necessary statistics regarding G
implementation of the Code of Discipline, labour enact-
ments awards etc.
x x x x x x x
It then deals with Implementation·Committees and states as follows: H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.
A "(iii) Implementation Committees:
6. The Implementation Committees at the Centre and in
the States represent both Central Employers' and Work-
ers' Organisations. The Central Implementation and
Evaluation Committee consists of an equal number of
-
employers' and workers' representatives-four each from
the Central employers' and workers' organisations. They
are nominated by the organisations to ~hich they belong
and not by Government. State/Administration Implemen-
tation Committees are also required to be consitituted in
consnltation with the Central Employers' and Workers'
c Organisations wherever they have affiliates in the States/
Territories concerned. These Committees are presided
over as far as possible by respective Labour Ministers. At
the local level, the Committees comprise an equal number
of representatives of employers and workers in the area
and are presided over by an officer of the Labour Depart-
D
ment or by a prominent person in the region.
7. The functions assigned to Implementation Committees
by the Standing Labour Committee in October, 1957 and
other Committees are as follows:-
( 1) to examine the extent of implementation of agree-
ments, awards and settlements and to advise the parties
which are anxious to implement an award but are unable to
do sci, as to how the difficulties in implemenation could be
overcome.
(2) to fix responsibility for violations of the Code in cases
brought to its notice by the Implementation Unit or in
those enquired into by it or a sub-committee appointed by
it. In doing so, the Committee may hear the parties con-
cerned, if considered necessary.
(:l) To consider cases for out-of-court settlement with the
consent of the parties, screening of cases of industrial dis-
putes before appeals are filed, etc. that may be brought to
its notice by the Implementation Unit or such 9ther cases
that the Committee may desire, to bring about harmonious
labour-management relations.
H
ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA !SAWANT, J.J 4()5
(4) to review periodically the working !Jf the Olde in their
. respective spheres. ·
(5) to maintain a two-way exchange of .eJlperiel!ce betwe!'n
A
the Committees at the lowest level and the C\:11tr;ll Com-
mittee. All points of importance arising a.t ;my ]eve] should
be given wide circulation." a
The Code further assigns the Implementation Units ami>ng pthers th.e
duty to provide the secretariat for the Implementation Committees
and to ensure that their decisions are implemented promptly. We
have also seen from the enumeration of the functions pf the Implemen-
tation Units above, that the Units have tc:> arrl!llge meetings c:>f the C
Implementation Committees and to functic:>n as their secretariat,
5. Section IV of the C!lde provides for "Grievance Pr1JC~11re".
It states, among other things, that it is the responsibility pfthe Cientrn!
and State/Administration Implementation Units to ensµre that a grie-
vance procedure is set up by ev.ery management in ginsµltation with D
their workers.
6. Section V of the C!lde deals with Recognition of Vnions and
.states as follows:
"11. Except in those States where the pr9ce4ure II> e1mf!!r E
recognition on unions is governed by a stat!lt!' the condi-
tions and procedure for recognitions c:>f 1mions are giwer-
It
ned by the provisions of the Co,je of Discipline. is the
responsibility of lmplementatiPn Units to ensu.re that
recognition is grantefi to unic:>ns by managements wher<;over
they satisfy the prescribed criteria. The prm:edure til be Jl
followed for this purpose is at Appendix JV, For ~he sllkloef
uniformity the State Implementatic:>n Units are requested
to adopt it."
,.., Appendix IV which is referred to above is he<1defi as follows;
"PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF MEMJ3ER·
SHIP OF UNIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNI·
TION UNDER THE CODE OF DISCIPLINE"
- It is not necessary to set out the entire procedure stateil in tl!.e sl!W
Appendix. A reference to only first two clauses and clause (10) J~f tb!l H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.
said procedure would suffice for our purpose. They state follows:
A
"( 1) On receipt of a representation from a union for '"
recognition under the Code of Discipline, the Central/State
Implementation Machinery will first ascertain:
B (a) the names of unions functioning in the establishment
together with their number and date of registration by
reference to the Registrar of Trade Unions concerned;
(b) whether any of the unions functioning in the establish-
ment was responsible for an established breach of the Code
during the past one year. (By an 'established breach of the
c Code' is meant a breach reported to and on enquiry
established by the Implementation Machinery of the State
or the Centre),
(c) whether the existing recognised union, if any, has com-
D pleted a period of two years of recognition.
(2) After ascertaining the above facts, the Implementation
Machinery at the Centre will request the Chief Labour
Commissioner to arrange verification of membership of
unions entitled to recognition under the Code. In the
E States, either the Implementation Officer will carry out this
verification or get it done through the State Labour Com-
missioner, depending on the practice in each State.
x x x x x x x x x
F ( 10) The verification officer will report his findings to the
Central/State Implementation Machinery which in tu$ will
communicate its decision to the management as well as to
the unions. In his report the veri{ication officer will also
indicate the total number of workers in the establishment
and the percentage of the verified membership to it."
G
We may also mention in this context that Annexure I to the Code
lays down a criteria for recognition of unions.
7. It will thus be apparent from the aforesaid provisions of the
Code that the "Implementation Machinery" envisaged by the Code
H consists of two separate Organisations, viz., Imple.mentation Units in
ROURK.ELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA [SAWANT, J.] 407
the respective Labour Departments, and Tripartite Implementation
A
Committees at the Central, State and local levels. Each of the Orgaei-
sations has been assigned different functions and they are independent
"' of each other while carrying out the same. While the Central
Implementation and Evaluation Division is set up in the Ministry of
Labour and Employment under the charge of a Joint Secretary, the
Implen;entation Units in the States are set up under the charge of a B
whole-time officer of the Labour Department. It is recommended that
the Implementation Officer should be a whole-time officer and of
sufficient seniority as far as possible. The Implementation Units have,
among other things, been entrusted with the task of ensuring that
every management sets up a grievance procedure in consultation with
their workers and ensuring that recognition is granted to Unions by
:management wherever they satisfy the prescribed criteria by following
c
the procedure laid down for the purpose in Appendix IV. We have
already pointed out that the prescribed criteria is laid down in An-
nexure I of the Code. Further pre-conditions for recognition are laid
down in clause ( 1) of Appendix IV. Thus the constitutions of the
Implementation Units and Implementation Committees are different D
i and they function in different areas.
8. It appears that the High Court has basically been swayed. by
the fact that in clause (1) of the Appendix IV it is stated that on the
receipt of the representation from unions for recognition, the Central/
State "Implementation Machinery" will first ascertain the facts stated E
in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof and thereafter, if at the Centre
the "Implementation Machinery" will require the Chief Labour Com-
missioner to arrange the verification of membership of unions entitled
to recognition and if in the States either the Implementation Officer
" will carry out the verification or get it done through the State Labour
Commissioner depending upon the practice obtaining in each State. F
The High Court also seems to have been influenced by the provisions
of clause (10) of the said Appendix which requires the Verification
Officer to report his findings on membership to the Centre/State
"Implementation Machinery": The High Court has obviously mistaken
..... the whole for the part. As we have pointed out earlier, although
Section II of the Code is headed "Implementation Machinery" the G
"Implementation Machinery" consists of two separate Organisations,
viz., Implementation Units and Tripartite Implementation Commit-
tees. This is obvious from the language of Section II itself. Their
· separate constitutions and functions also make this aspect clear. What
- is further, to hold that the Implementation Unit in the respective
Labour Department together with the respective Tripartite Implemen- H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.
A tation Committee at the Central, State or Local Level would constitute
the Implementation Machinery jointly and not each of them separately
would run not only counter to the intention of the Code as is manifest
from the clear language of Section II and their separate composition
and functions, but would also be impracticable in working. We have
reproduced above the composition of the Implementation Committees
B at the Centre and the State Level. These Committees consist of, at the
central level, an equal number of employers' and workers' represen-
tation-four each from the central Employers' and Workers' Organi-
sations as nominated by the Organisations themselves. At the State
level, they are required to be constituted similarly and in consultation
with the Central Employers' and Workers' Organisations wherever
C they have affiliates in the States concerned. The Committees are
further presided over as far as possible by respective Labour Ministers
and even where it is not possible for Labour Minister to preside over
them, they have to associate themselves as much as possible with the
deliberation of the Committees. At the local level, the Committees are
similarly constituted of an equal number of representatives of the
D employers' and Workers' in the area and are presided over by an
Officer of the Labour Department or by a prominent person in the
region. In a given case there may be more associations than one of
employers and employees, and the Committees would thus consist of
an unwieldy number. To except such a Committee to carry out the
work mentioned in Appendix IV is unrealistic. That is why the Code
E itself has entrusted to the Implementation Units and not to the
Implementation Committees the task of ensuring that recognition is
granted to unions by management. At the Centre, the Implementation
Unit is kept in charge of a Joint Secretary and at the State level it is in
charge of a whole-time officer of the State Labour Department.
F 9. The record further shows that as early as on May 26, 1959,
i.e., after about a year of the ratification of the Code, the Government
of India issued a statement naming and designating Officers Incharge
of Evaluation and Implementation work in all the States and further
stated as follows:
G " .... It is requested that all complaints of non-implemen-
tation of Labour Laws, awards, settlements, agreements,
Code of Discipline etc., relating to undertakings in the
State sphere may kindly be referred, in future, to State
Implementation Officers concerned ..... "
H So far as the State of Orissa is concerned, the Implementation
ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA [SAWANT, J.] 409
Officer named by the Government of India is the Labour Commis-
sioner of the State. Since the Implementation Unit/Implementation A
Officer entrusted with the task of granting recognition to the Unions in
, the State of Orissa was the· Labour Commissioner of the State, the
appellant-Sangh had rightly approached the Labour Commissioner for
the purpose. The High Court having committed the basic error of
confusing the Implementation unit and Tripartite Implementation B
Committee together with the Implementation Machinery was misled
into holding that the Implementation Unit/Implementation Officer
was not the proper authority to initiate the procedure for recognition.
,i The High Court was further wrong in holding that clause ( 10) of
Appendix IV which mentions that the Verification Officer will report
his findings to the Implementation Machinery conveyed t)le meaning c
that the Implementation Unit or the Labour Commissioner was not
the "Implementation Machinery" but only a Verific:ition Officer.
Since the State Labour Commissioner was named as the Implementa-
tion Officer who is none but the officer fa-charge of the Implementa-
tion Unit, the ·State Labour Commissioner as the Implementation D
Officer had an option either to carry out the verification of member-
i ship himself or entrust it to some other Officer like the_ Deputy Labour
Commissioner as in the present case. That was only an entrustment of ·
a ministerial work. The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present
case is the Verification Officer and under clause ( 10) of Appendix IV,
he has to send his report to the Implementation Officer or Unit, i.e., E
the State Labour Commissioner, and the State Labour Commissioner
will in turn communicate his decision as the State Implementation
Machinery to the management as well as the Unions.
10. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the High
Court has erred in allowing Writ Petition No. 4426 of 1989 filed by the f
1st respondent and dismissing the appllant's Writ Petition being No.
361 of 1990. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the High Court
and direct the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the process
of verification of membership and the Labour Commissioner to comp-
lete the proceedings of recognition as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within four months from the receipt of this decision.
,.
-~ G
In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own
costs.
- R.S.S. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "labour law"Sign in to search