ORDER
N. Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. In the respondent industry there is one more registered trade union by name Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association which is the recognised trade union which represents more than 80% of the employees. The petitioner union raised a demand for, payment of 20% bonus and appointments on compassionate ground to the Wards of the employees of HAL who died in harness. When the respondent did not respond to the aforesaid demand, the Executive Committee of the petitioner passed a resolution on 27.10.1991 resolving to raise a dispute in respect of the aforesaid two claims. Before the conciliation officer the respondent contended that the petitioner union has no locus standi to espouse the cause on behalf of the employees of the establishment as there is a recognised registered trade union. Conciliation having failed the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The said dispute was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 1/93. The first point referred was whether the petitioner union was competent to raise an industrial dispute on behalf of the employees of the respondent. The other two points of reference were regarding payment of bonus and the compassionate appointment.
2. The petitioner filed a detailed claim statement setting out their case. In reply to the claim statement filed the respondents have filed their counter. In the said counter it was specifically contended that the HAL at Bangalore had several divisions and is having a work force of 14,300 employees. The employees have a recognised representative union by name Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association, which is the only collective bargaining agent. To constitute an industrial dispute the points of dispute must have the support of an appreciable number of workmen of the industry. In the case on hand there is no support of the appreciable number of workmen of the industry converting the same into an industrial dispute, therefore, the dispute is not an industrial dispute as understood within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no proper espousal of the dispute as such the dispute itself is unsustainable, reference is bad and the Government had no jurisdiction to make the reference. Therefore, they sought for rejection of the reference.
3. In support of their respective contentions the petitioner examined one witness and marked 23 documents. Respondent also examined its Deputy Manager as MW1 and marked 8 documents and closed their side. Thereafter, the Labour Court held unless the espousal of dispute by the petitioner-union is duly authorized, the question of going into the merits would not arise and, therefore, raised a preliminary point for consideration, heard the learned counsel on the preliminary point only. Then after referring to two judgments, the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner union is not duly authorized to espouse the cause, as such the reference by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication is one without jurisdiction, bad and accordingly rejected the reference by its award dated 25.11.1999. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned award contends, having regard to the definition of industrial dispute as contained in Section 2(k) of the Act the petitioner satisfies the requirement of an industrial dispute. The concept of espousal of an industrial dispute by an union in respect of an individual claim was the subject matter of the decisions referred to by the Industrial Tribunal and the same has no application to a case of espousal of an industrial dispute on behalf of the entire workers in a representative character. After the amendment of the Act introducing Section 2-A, this concept of espousal of an individual dispute by a trade union has lost its significance. When once it is demonstrated that the petitioner union is a registered trade union and the executive committee of the petitioner passed a resolution duly authorizing to raise a dispute, nothing more is required and, therefore, he submits the reasoning of the Tribunal to reject the reference is illegal and contrary to law. He also contended the question of majority union, minority union, recognized union is totally irrelevant. Once there exists a dispute and after failure of conciliation, it requires to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and in fact the Government committed a serious error in raising pointing No. 1 in the reference which itself was bad. Therefore, he submits seen from any angle the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits in law there is a distinction between an individual dispute and a dispute in a representative character. It is only a registered and recognized trade union which was sufficient following among the work force has the competence to represent the workers as a class and raise a dispute. When there is a recognised union in the industry, an unrecognized union, though it has certain rights in law, have no right to raise an industrial dispute on behalf of the entire workers. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is legal and valid.
6. Prior to the introduction of Section 2-A in the Act, when an individual workman who had a grievance against the action of the management had no right to raise an industrial dispute. His dispute had to be necessarily raised through an union. It is in the context the question arose whether that employee is a member of the union, if there is no union at all whether an union of another establishment to which that employee was the member has locus standi to raise a dispute. Even an unrecognized union was held to have locus standi to raise an individual dispute and negotiate with the management in so far as his grievances are concerned. All these things are now things of the past with the introduction of Section 2-A. The two judgments on which reliance was placed by the Industrial Tribunal as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputes espousing the cause of an individual workman. Therefore, the law laid down in those two judgments on which reliance is placed by the Tribunal has no application to the facts of this case.
7. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.H. Jadav v. Forbes Gokak Limited [ILR 2005 KAR 1525] where it was held, as far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the Union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However, proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case and it was held in a case where there is establishment of union on its own and some of the employees had joined the union of some other establishment belonging to the same industry, in such a case, it would be open to the union to take up the cause of those workmen despite the fact that the said union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned. In fact that aforesaid judgment was also a case of an individual dispute. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment would be of no assistance in deciding the question in dispute.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India and Anr. v. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and Ors. (2002 AIR SCW 2401) where the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the difference between an individual dispute and a collective dispute. In the aforesaid judgment in the Supreme Court has held that, with growth of industrialization in the country and progress made in the field of trade union activities the necessity for having multiple unions in an industry has been felt very often. Taking note of this position power has been vested in the management to recognize one of the trade unions for the purpose of having discussions and negotiations in labour related matters. This arrangement is in recognition of the right of collective bargaining of workmen/employees in an industry. To avoid arbitrariness, bias and favouritism in the matter of recognition of a trade union Rules have been framed laying down the procedure for ascertaining which of the trade unions commands support of majority of workmen/employees. Such procedure is for the benefit of the workmen/employees as well as the management/employer since collective bargaining with a trade union having the support of majority of workmen will help in maintaining industrial peace and will hold smooth functioning of the establishment.
9. Therefore, to say that in law there cannot be any difference between a recognized union and an unrecognised union and both are to be treated on the same footing is not a correct statement of law. After following the procedure if an employer recognizes a particular union as representing the majority of its work force such recognition confers certain special rights on the recognized union which right is not available to an unrecognized union. However, it is not as if the unrecognized union has no right at all in law. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has dealt with the rights of an unrecognized union also. It is said that, taking note of the possibility of multiple trade unions coming into existence in the industry, provisions have been made in the Rules conceding certain rights to non-recognized unions. Though such non-recognized unions may not have the right to participate in the process of collective bargaining with the management/employer over issues concerning the workmen in general, they have the right to meet and discuss with the employer or any person appointed by him on issues relating to grievances of any individual member regarding his service conditions and to appear on behalf of their members in any domestic or department enquiry held by the employer or before the conciliation officer or labour Court or industrial tribunal.
10. Therefore, it is clear a unrecognized union will not have right to participate in the process of collective bargaining with the management/employer over the issues concerning the workmen in general. The Supreme Court has further pointed out, in essence, the distinction between the two categories of trade unions is that while the recognized union has the right to participate in the discussions/negotiations regarding general issues affecting all workmen/employees and settlement if any arrived at as a result of such discussion/negotiations is binding on all workmen/employees, whereas a non-recognised union cannot claim such a right, but it has the right to meet and discuss with the management/employer about the grievances of any individual member in domestic inquiry or departmental enquiry and proceedings before the conciliation officer and adjudicator.
11. In fact in the case of Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union Bombay and Anr. v. Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 711) the Supreme Court has observed that, a need was felt that where there are multiple unions seeking to represent workmen in an undertaking or in an industry, a concept of recognized union must be developed. In the report submitted by the Standing Labour Committee it is recorded that there was near unanimity that the concept of recognised union as the sole bargaining agent must be developed in the larger interest of industrial peace and harmony. Similar observations are found in the report submitted by the National Commission on Labour where they have unanimously and wholeheartedly expressing itself in favour of the concept of recognized union and it being clothed with powers of sole bargaining agent with exclusive right to represent workmen, addressed itself only to the question of the method of ascertaining which amongst various rival unions must be accorded the status of a recognized union. Accepting the democratic principle it was agreed that the union which represents the largest number of workmen working in the undertaking must acquire the status as that would be in tune with the concept of industrial democracy. Recognition of a union confers rights, duties and obligations. Non-conferring of such rights, duties and obligations on a union other than the recognized union does not put it on an inferior position.
12. The necessity for having multiple unions in an industry has come to stay. Power has been vested in the management to recognize one of the trade unions for the purpose of having discussions and negotiations in respect of the collective bargaining in an industry. Collective bargaining is the principal raison d’etre of the trade unions. The method of secret ballot is being gradually accepted to find out which among the trade unions has a largest following. The Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and Ors. has laid down the norms and procedure which shall be followed for assessing the representative character of trade unions by the secret ballot system. It is the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Secret ballot would avoid arbitrariness, bias and favoritism in the matter of recognition of a trade union. Thus democratic principles are to be followed in ascertaining the will of the workers. Neither the management nor any trade union has any say in this matter. Once a trade union gets the majority support in a democratic process, the union which represents the largest number of workmen working in the undertaking acquires the status of a “recognized union”, which would be in tune with the concept of industrial democracy. The management has no option but to accept the result of the democratic process and confer on the union the status of “recognized union”.
13. Recognition of an Union confers rights, duties and obligations. By such recognition a right is conferred on the union to participate in the discussions/negotiations regarding general issues affecting all workmen/employees and settlement, if any arrived at as a result of such discussions/negotiations is binding on all workmen/employees. In other words in a collective bargaining, it is the recognised union which is the sole bargaining agent. Such a right is not conferred on the unrecognized union. The exclusion is partial and the embargo on such unrecognized union is in the larger interest of industry, public interest and national interest. However, non conferring of such rights, duties and obligations on an union other than the recognized union does not put it on inferior position. Trade Unions Act confers some specific rights on such unrecognized unions, such as right to meet and discuss with the management/employer about the grievances of any individual member relating to his service conditions and to represent an individual member in domestic enquiry or departmental enquiry and proceedings before the conciliation officer and adjudicator and a host of other rights. It is also to be kept in mind that for the sake of industrial peace and proper administration of the industry it is necessary for the management to seek cooperation of the entire work force. The management should act in a manner which helps in uniting its workmen/employees and not give an impression of a decisive force out to create differences and distrust amongst workmen and employees.
14. From the aforesaid discussions it is clear it is only a recognized union in an industry which can represent the workers of the said union. Therefore, it follows any industrial dispute touching the entire workers of the establishment could be raised only by a recognized union and not by an unrecognized union.
15. In the instant case it is not in dispute that in the industrial establishment there is another registered trade union which admittedly has membership of more than 80% of the employees. The management has recognized the said union. In so far as the petitioner union is concerned till today they are not able to give list of the members of the union. They are unable to state how many members are there in their union. Though in the counter statement it was specifically stated that the union is not duly authorized to espouse the dispute and they have no locus standi to represent the workers of the establishment except producing the certificate of registration, bye-laws and a copy of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee nothing is placed on record to show the membership of the union and the number of persons it represent. In fact the respondents have filed along with the statement of objections an affidavit stating that seven members who have subscribed to the memorandum of association to the petitioner union since have retired on reaching the age of superannuation and all of them earlier were members of the recognized union and, therefore, it is contended that this union is not a representative union of the employees of the industrial establishment and, therefore, they have no locus standi to espouse the dispute. In an establishment where there are more than 14,300 employees. 7 of them can form a trade union, get it registered, have their own bye-laws and negotiate with the management and also espouse the cause of an individual workman, assist a workman in a departmental enquiry and give all assistance but they cannot represent the entire body of the workmen. The dispute which is now raised is for payment of 20% bonus to all the employees and appointment of persons on compassionate grounds. This dispute pertains to the entire labour force. The recognized union has not raised the dispute. Under these circumstances, as rightly held by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner is not a representative union of the entire employees of the establishment, they have no locus standi to raise this industrial dispute and the Government was in total error even in making the reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, though this objection was raised by the management at the earliest point of time, at the conciliation. I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.