Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION & ORS.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 27
- Decided
- 27 January 1988
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G L OZA
Holding
When a registered trade union represents more than half of the workers, the Works Committee members are elected without any constituency division, making the division ordered by the authorities invalid.
Summary
The Union of India appealed a Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed an order dividing electoral constituencies for the election of a Works Committee under the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The order sought to create multiple constituencies to represent various sections of workers, even though the M.T.S.S.D. Workers' Union held more than 50% of the workforce. The Supreme Court examined Rules 39, 41, 42 and 43 and held that when a registered trade union commands a majority of workers, the election must be conducted without any constituency division, rendering Rule 42’s two‑group scheme inapplicable and consequently precluding the operation of Rule 43. Since the union’s membership exceeded the 50% threshold, the High Court’s decision was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the division of electoral constituencies under Rules 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 is permissible when a registered trade union has more than 50% membership in the establishment.
- Interpretation of the proviso to Rule 42 and the applicability of Rule 43 in such a scenario.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 3
- Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957s. 39, s. 41, s. 42, s. 43
- Trade Unions Act, 1926
Subjects
Works CommitteeIndustrial Disputes ActConstituency divisionTrade union majorityRule 42Rule 43Election of workers representatives
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. A
v.
M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION & ORS.
JANUARY 27, 1988
B
[G.L. OZA AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
~v Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/lndustrial Disputes (Central) Rule;,
r 1957:
Section 3/Rules 39 & 41 to 43-Works Committee-Election on
l,iasis of division of constituencies-Whether valid and permissible. c
·-f
' The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court for quash-
-/ ing the order dated 31. l. 1984 of the authorities, informing the respon-
dent Union about the scheme of election to the Works Committee to he
constituted for the period 1984-86, on the basis of division in different
D
constituencies under the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957,
framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The High Court held that such a distribution of constituencies was
not permissible in view of the scheme of the Rules, especially Rules 39,
41, 42 and 43.
E
~ In the appeal by special leave, on hahalf of the appellants it was
contended that such a division of constituencies to give appropriate
- representation to various sections, groups and categories of workers,
skilled, unskilled, clerical and otherwise, was justified under Rule 39
-,. '\. and proviso to Rule 43. F
T On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that while Rule 42
"f, contemplated only division in two constituencies, that is, those who
were members and those were not, of a registered trade union, it
further provided that where more than half the workers belonged to one
registered trade union, there was no need for any division of consti-
G
tuencies, and election will be only hy general vote of workers of the
. .-. industry and, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the
division of constituencies as contemplated in the aforesaid order was not
" ~ permissible.
Dismissing the appeal, H
825
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
y-
A HELD: The scheme of the Industrial Disputes (Control) Rules,
1957 for the constitution of Works Committee clearly provides that (a) ~
where there is a registered trade union having more than 50 per cent
membership of the workers in that establishment, the total number of
members of the Works Committee will be elected without distribution
of any constituencies; and (b) if in an industry, no trade union regis-
B tered under the Trade Unions Act represents more than 50 per cent of (·
the members, then only the election will be held in two constituencies,
one from the members of the registered trade union or unions and the ~
other from non-members of the trade onions and it is only in this
contingency, it is further provided that, if the employer thinks proper'(
may further sub-divide the constituency into department, section or f-·
shed. [832C-E] /
c ~
When there is a registered trade union in an establishment,
having more than 50 per cent membership, the exercise under Rule 43
of the Industrial Disputes (Control) Rules, 1957 is futile and is not
called for. [832F-G]
D ·~
In the instant case since the respondent union's membership is
more than 50 per cent, the distribution of constituencies under Rule 42
is not contemplated and, therefore, there is no occassioo for Rule 43 or
proviso therein to come into operation. [832G]
y...
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 341
of 1988. ....
.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1986 of the Bombay
High Court in W.P. No. 1946 of 1984.
D.N. Devedi, C. Ramesh and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appel-
,, ,.---<
'y
!ants. I
R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by >.-
G
OZA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by the Union ,i., ..
of India against a judgment passed by High Court of Bombay in Misc.
Petition No. 1946/84 decided on 2.4.1986. A Writ petition before the r
High Court was filed by M.T.S.S.D. Workers' Union, Pune and two of
the employees in the establishment in which this union is functioning. ·1r
H In this Writ Petition an order was sought quashing the decision of the
U.O.l. v. M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION !OZA, J.J 827
'-"(
authorities concerned of the petitioner who by their order dated A
31.1.1984 informed the union about the scheme of the election to the
)- Works Committee on the basis of the division in different constitu-
tencies. This order of the Commandant was conveyed to the respon-
dent union. These Works Committees were to be constituted for the
period 1984-86.
B
The question that was considered by the High Court was as to
whether such a distribution was permissible under the Rules framed
'-r;
under Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment came to the
conclusion that such a distribution of constituencies is not permissible
in view of the scheme of the Rules especially Rules 39, 41, 42 and 43 of
the Central Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act.
c
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that
Rule 39 when it talks of representation to the various categories and
..,., groups and class of workmen it contemplates that such constituencies D
be divided so that various sections, groups and categories of workers
skilled, unskilled, clerical and otherwise may get appropriate re-
presentation. Learned couosel also relied on the proviso to Rule 43 to
justify the division of the constitutencies which was done by the
impugned order which was set aside by the High Court of Bombay.
-¥
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that E
the Works Committees are expected to go into day to day problems
and they are expected to be so constituted that they bring harmony and
better functioning of the industry and it is for this purpose. According
to the learned counsel Rule 42 contemplates only division in two
constitutencies that is those who are members of a registered trade
union and those who are not members of the registereq trade union F
and even while providing for such a distribution in Rule 42 it has been
further provided that where more than half the workers belong to one
registered trade union then there is no need for any division of
constituencies and election will only be by general vote of the workers
in the industry. It was contended by learned counsel that this scheme
-~
of these Rules contemplates that where there is a union representing G
the majority of workers there is no occasion for any distribution of
~ constituencies so that the union and the management with the help of
the Works Committee may resolve day to day problems and the in-
dustry may run smoothly in the interest of production and industrial
peace. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Bombay
High Court in the scheme of the Rules is justified. H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 2 S.C.R.
The constitution of the Works Committees has been provided for
A
in Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:
"3. Works Committee:(!) In the case of any industrial
establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are
employed or have been employed on any day in the preced-
B ing twelve months the appropriate Government may by
general or special order require the employer to constitute
in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of
representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the
establishment so however that the number of representa-
tives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than ~.
l
the number of representatives of the employer. The f-
c representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the
1
prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in \
the establishment and in consultation with their trade
union, if any, registered under the India Trade Unions Act,
1926 (XVI of 1926).
D
(2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to pro-
mote measures for securing and preserving amity and good
relations between the employer and workmen and, to that
end, to comment upon matters of their common interest or
concern and endeavour to compose any material difference
E of opinion in respect of such matters."
It is clear from the language used in this Section that the re-
presentatives of workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner
and it shall be so done in consultation with their trade union if there is~
any registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act.
F
It is because of this that the Rules have prescribed the manner in
which the Works Committees will be constituted. In Chapter 7 of the
Rules framed under Industrial Disputes (Ce.. tral) Rules 1957 it has
been provided for a constitution of the Works Committee. Rule 39 on
which much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the appellants
G reads:
"Number of members-The number of members constitut- J
ing the Committee shall be fixed so as to afford representa-
tion to the various categories, groups and class of workmen
engaged in, and to the sections, shops or departments of
H the establishment:
U.0.1. v. M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION [OZA, J.] 829
Provided that the total number of members shall not ex- A
ceed twenty:
Provided further that the number of representatives of the
workmen shall not be less than the number of representa-
tives of the employer."
B
r This Rule talks of the number of members to constitute a Works
Committee and it has been provided that the number shall be so fixed
keeping in view that representation could be made in the Committee
of workers engaged in different sections, shops, departments of the
establishment. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant
) that it was because of this that the management in this industry chose C
to distribute the constituencies in such a manner that there may be
I representatives in the Works Committee of different sections and
departments of the industry. But it is clear that Rule 39 does not talk
of any distribution of constituencies.
The relevant Rule which provides for group of workmen's re- D
presentatives is Rule 42 but Rule 41 contemplates consultation with
the trade unions and where there is a registered trade union the
management is expected to ask the registered trade union to give
information as to how many of the workmen are members of the union
and how their membership is distributed among the sections, shops
and departments of the establishment. Rule 41 reads as under: E
"Consultation with trade unions: (1) Where any workmen
of an establishment are members of a registered trade
union the employer shall ask the union to inform him in
writing
F
(a) how many of the workmen are members of the union;
and
(b) how their membership is distributed among the
sections, shops or departments of the establishment.
A G
(2) Where an employer has reason to believe that the in-
formation furnished to him under sub-rule (1) by any trade
union is false, he may, after informing the union, refer the
matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
concerned for his decision; and the Assistant Labour Com-
missioner (Central), after hearing the parties, shall decide H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] 2 S.C.R.
the matter and his decision shall be final."
A
Rule 42 reads thus:
"Group of workmen's representatives: On receipt of the
information called for under Rule 41, the employer shall
B provide for the election of workmen's representative on the
Committee in two groups:
(1) those to be elected by the workmen of the
establishment who are members of the registered
trade union or unions, and
c (2) those to be elected by the workmen of the estab-
lishment who are not members of the registered trade
union or unions,
bearing the same proportion to each other as the union
D members in the establishment bear to the non-members:
Provided that where more than half the workmen are
members of the union or any one of the unions, no such
division shall be made:
E Provided further that where a registered trade union
1
neglects or fails to furnish the information called for under
sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 within one month of the date of the
notice requiring it to furnish such information such union
sh~ll for the purpose of this rule be treated as if it did not
exist:
I
F
Provided further that where any reference has been
made by the employer under sub-rnle (2) of Rule 41, the
election shall be held on receipt of the decision of Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central.)"
>-- -·
G This Rule clearly provides that the workers' representatives in the
Committee will be in two groups:(l) those who are elected by the JI
workmen who are members of the registered trade union or unions · ,
and (2) other those who will be elected by the workmen of the estab-
lishment who are not members of the registered trade union or unions
and it is further provided that this number would bear the same pro-
H portion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear
U.0.1. v. M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION [OZA, J.J 831
~
•
to the non-members. That clearly shows that if in an industry there is
A
or are registered trade unions and they have their membership as the
management will know under the scheme of Section 41, the manage-
ment will fix the number of seats in the Works Committee to be
elected by the members of the union and by those who are not the
members of the union and the ratio between the members representing
-r
.-\
the union members and the members representing those who are not
union members will be the same as membership of the union vis-a-vis
non members in the establishment .
B
There is yet another proviso which provides that where more
1 than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the
unions no such division will be made. This clearly goes to show that
c
-/ where in an industry or am establishment the majority of the workers
are in one union the distribution as provided in Rule 42 will not be
necessary, it will only be one constituency. This scheme of Rule 42
read with this proviso clearly goes to show that where there is any
registered trade union representing the majority of workers (more
.- than 50%) the question of distribution of constituencies does not arise.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that,proviso to Rule
D
43 contemplates division of the constituencies into various sheds,
departments and sections as was done by the management which was
quashed by the High Court. Rule 43 reads as under:
+ "43. Electoral constituencies: Where under Rule 42 of the E
workmen's representatives are to be elected in two groups,
••
the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two
electoral constituencies, the one consisting of those who
are members of a registered trade union and the other of
those who are not:
F
Provided that the employer may, if he thinks fit, sub--
divide the Electoral constituency or constituencies, as the
case may be and direct that workmen shall vote in either by
groups, sections shops or departments."
_...
This Rule starts with a situation where under Rule 42 the workmen's G
, ,l representatives are to be elected in two groups and where such a
situation exists. The proviso further provides that if the employer
thinks fit may sub-divide the electoral constituencies in a manner so
that the workers may vote either by groups or by sections or by depart-
ments. But it is clear from the language of this Rule that this sub
division of constituencies only could be done if Rule 43 comes into H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
operation. Admittedly in the present case in this industry the respon-
A
dent trade union represents the majority of the workers that it has
more than 50 per cent as its members and the occasion for distribution
of the works committee into two constituencies as contemplated in
Rule 42 does not arise and if it is not so then Rule 43 does not come
into operation at all as Rule 43 itself clearly states that this Rule only
B comes into operation "where under Rule 42 the workers representa-
tives are to be elected in two groups". It is therefore clear that this
proviso to Rule 43 is not an independent substantive provision and
therefore on this basis the contention advanced by learned counsel for
the appellants is of no substance.
It is therefore clear that the scheme of these Rules for constitu-
c tion of Works Committees clearly provide:(a) where there is a regis-
tered trade union having more than 50 per cent membership of the
workers in that establishment the total number of members of the
Works Committee will be elected without distribution of any consti-
tuencies:(b) if in an industry no trade union registered under the
D Trade Unions Act represents more than 50 per cent of the members
then only the election will be hP.ld in two constituencies, one from the
members of the registered trade union or unions and the other from
non members of the trade unions and it is only in this contingency it is
further provided that if the employer thinks proper may further sub-
divide the constituency into department, section or shed. This clearly
E indicates that there may be a situation in an particular establishment
where some section may have no membership of any trade union at all
whereas in other sections there may be membership of trade unions
then if under Rule 42 it has to divide in two constituencies that is
members of the registered trade union and non members. It may
further sub-divide in order to provide for representation to any section
F ·of workmen who have no representation in any trade union at all. It is
therefore clear that when there is a registered trade union in an
establishment having more than 50 per cent membership this exercise
under Rule 43 is futile and is not called for as in this case as admittedly
the respondent unions membership is more than 50 per cent. The
distribution of constituencies under Rule 42 is not contemplated and
G therefore there is no occasion for Rule 43 or proviso therein to come
into operation. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the judgment
of the High Court is correct and we see no reason to interfere with it.
The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances of the case,
parties are directed to bear their own costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Works Committee"Sign in to search