VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS EMPLOYEES UNIONversusSARV SHRAMIK SANGH AND ORS.

             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.

           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.
B
          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
 . immediately preceding the calendar month of filing of application.
F       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 the Industrial Court would be done in 2006 and not in I988 or                 A
2003.

     We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment of the High Court as
under:-

           "The direction of the High court in its impugned judgment and B
       order dated 23.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2375 of 1993 is
       modified to the extent that the Industrial Court will decide the
       Application (MRTU) No.8of1988 filed by the Sarva Shramik Sangh,
       respondent No. I herein, as well as the Application (MRTU) No.20 of
       2003 filed by the Vegetable Vitamins Foods Employees Union, petitioner
       herein, treating the two Application to have been filed on 1.1.2006 and C
       after conducting the investigations required under Section 12 (2) read
       with Section 11 (I) of the MRTU Act for the period of six month~
       immediately preceding 1.1.2006 to determine the membership of the
       Sarva Shramik Sangh as well as of the Vegetable Vitamins Foods
       Employees Union. The parties are at liberty to amend their respective D
       Applications if so required. With the above modification the Special
       Leave Petition is disposed of."

      Since the matter is pending for very long time, we direct the Industrial
Court, Bombay to dispose of both the Application Nos.8 of 1988 and 20 of
2003 within three months from today. The appeal stands disposed of                         E
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

      The Registry is dir~cted to send a copy of this Judgment to the Industrial
Court, Bombay immediately for information and necessary action.

NJ.                                                           Appeal disposed of.