{"id":161264,"date":"2006-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006"},"modified":"2016-05-16T15:12:15","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T09:42:15","slug":"shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2007 (1) MhLj 761<\/div>\n
Author: F Rebello<\/div>\n
Bench: F Rebello, A V Mohta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
F.I. Rebello, J.<\/p>\n
Page 3138<\/p>\n
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
The Petitioner employed with M\/s. Crawford  Bayley & Co, had made an application to the  Industrial Court to be impleaded as party in Application Page 3139 (M.R.T.U.) No. 14 of 2003, which was  taken out by Respondent No. 1, under the provisions  of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and  Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (M.R.T.U.  & P.U.L.P. Act) (hereinafter referred to as the  Act). An affidavit was filed in support of the  application. Along with the Petitioner, other  employees also filed affidavits. In the affidavit  it was pointed out that the Petitioner was a Member  of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha and had resigned from  the membership of Respondent No. 1 from 2.4.2004.  They had intimated to Respondent No. 1 that they  had joined another union namely Adarsh Kamgar Sabha.  In the affidavit it has been set out as under :\n<\/p>\n
 I have informed the non-Applicant Union to  revoke and cancel resolution dated 19th  August, 2003 passed by the Applicant Union  in which it was decided that the Applicant  Union should apply for recognition for M\/s.  Crawford Bayley & Co. Bombay the  Non-Applicant Company. I have also informed  the Applicant Union that I am no more the  member of the Applicant Union and have  become the member of Adarsh Kamgar Sabha a  Union registered under the Trade Union Act,  1926.\n<\/p>\n
It is then stated that if the recognition is  granted to Respondent No. 1 it will prejudice and  harm the interest of the employees as their interest  would be adversely affected. The Petitioner along  with other employees opposed recognition being  granted to Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent No. 1 has raised several objections  to the maintainability of the application. The  applicant it is stated has no right to participate  under Chapter III and IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.  Act and for that purpose reliance was placed in the  judgement of Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha v.  Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi and Ors. 1985 II C.L.R.  314. The main Application for recognition has been  filed by Respondent No. 1 in August, 2003 and the  relevant period is from February to July, 2003. The  Union which the Petitioner claims to have joined has  came into existence only in April, 2004 and as such  the applicant has no locus standi to become a party  in the proceedings, as the Union is only about 5  months old. The workmen working in the company were  their members during the relevant period and also  are very much members at the time of filing the  reply and as such the contentions of the various  workmen were not correct.\n<\/p>\n
2. The learned tribunal heard the parties and by an order dated 17.2.2005 dismissed the application.  The learned Industrial Court held that the  application is not verified by any of the workman  and has been signed by the Advocate. It also held  that it was possible for the individual workmen to  implead their present union as non applicant No. 2  in this case but that had not been done. The 64  workmen had switched over to the membership of  another Union recently. The essential prerequisites  for making an application for recognition,  prescribed under the Act had not been completed by  the new Union, whose membership has been accepted by  the present workman. The court while considering  the grant of recognition is required to examine  whether the applicant Union has proved its majority  of membership for the relevant period. During the  verification of the membership of the applicant  Union, individual employees can raise their  grievance, if any, before the investigating officer.  The tribunal also held that considering the scheme  of the Act and Page 3140 the Rules, the workman had not  fulfilled the criteria for being impleaded in the  complaint and accordingly rejected the application.  It is this order which is the subject matter of the  present petition.\n<\/p>\n
3. At the hearing of the Petition, on behalf of the  Petitioner, their learned Counsel submits, that the Industrial Court has completely misread the  provisions of the Act and the rules while rejecting  the application. Section 12 of the Act itself,  contemplates that the Industrial Court is duty bound  to give notice to employees likely to be affected,  Employers and the Unions in the undertaking before  the grant of recognition to an applicant Union.  Under Section 12, it was the bounden duty of the  Industrial Court to consider the objections raised  by the employees to the recognition sought for by  the Respondent No. 1. The observation of the  Industrial Court that individual employees can give  their say before the Investigation Officer during  the verification of the membership disclose an error  of law apparent on the face of the record. It is  the court under Section 12 which has to consider the  objections and not the Investigating Officer. It  was the duty of the court to consider whether the  Union seeking recognition and which does not have  even a single member at the time of considering an  application, can act in the interest of the workers  and therefore, the Industrial court should not have  rejected the application for joinder. The  Industrial Court it is submitted has overlooked the  provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Act under  which, hearing to affected employees has to be given  and as such the court was bound to allow the  application and to implead the workers as party respondents to the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand on behalf of the Respondent No.  1, their learned Counsel submits that it is  Respondent No. 1 who had applied for recognition.  What the court in such circumstances must do is to  examine whether the Union which has made an  application for recognition has for the whole of the  period of six calender months immediately preceding  the calender month in which it so applies,  membership of not less than 30% of the total number  of employees employed in any undertaking. It is  submitted that based on the material produced by the  Petitioners themselves, admittedly, they had joined  another union much after the application by  Respondent No. 1. No member can individually be  allowed to be represented in the proceedings. Only  an Union can so apply and as the Union to which some  of the employees subsequently joined, did not have  the relevant membership for the concerned period,  the application for joinder was rightly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
4. The issue which we are called upon to answer is,  whether on a notice being given under Regulation  23(ii) of the Industrial Court Regulation 1973,  (which hereinafter shall be referred to as  “Regulations”) in form 8-A, can the employees  employed in the establishment in respect of which recognition is sought, apply to the Industrial court  to be added as parties in the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
5. It is settled law and in our opinion, it will  make no difference whether the application is made  before a tribunal or a civil court. It is only  those parties whose presence is required for  disposing of the issues in controversy, who alone  are necessary parties to the proceedings as also  those parties may be added whose presence may be  required to enable the Court or Tribunal to pass an  effective decree. Therefore, the Industrial court  would have to apply Page 3141 the test of joinder of parties  in deciding whether the applicant is necessary and  or a proper party which answer would depend upon  whether their presence is required for adjudication  of the dispute pending before it. To examine that  issue, we may consider some of the relevant  provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.  Chapter III of the Act deals with the recognition of  the Union. Section 10 sets out that the provisions  of Chapter III shall apply to every undertaking  wherein fifty or more employees are employed, or  were employed on any day of the preceding twelve  months. Under Section 11, any Union which has for  the whole of the period of six calender months  immediately preceding the calender month in which it  so applies. membership of not less than 30% of the total number of employees employed in any  undertaking, apply for being recognised. Under  Section 12 the Industrial Court on receipt of the  application from the Union and on payment of  prescribed fees, if it finds the application to be  in order, has to cause notice tobe displayed on the  notice board of the undertaking, declaring its  intention to consider the said application on the  dates specified in the notice and calling on the  other union or unions having membership and  employees likely to be affected, to show cause  within the prescribed time as to why the recognition  should not be granted. It is not necessary to refer  to other provisions which require that the  Industrial Court must come to the conclusion that  the conditions required for registration under  Section 11 are satisfied. For our discussion it may  be necessary to refer to Section 12(5) which sets  out that the Industrial Court shall not recognise  any union, if it is satisfied that the application  for its recognition is not made bona fide in the  interest of the employees, but is made in the  interest of the employer, to the prejudice of the  interest of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
Under Section 14 it is open to the Industrial  Court to entertain an application for recognition of  another union on the ground that it has the largest membership amongst employees employed in such  undertaking, after a period of two years has elapsed  from the date of registration of the recognised  union. By the proviso it is set out that the  Industrial Court cannot entertain any application  for registration of the Union, unless a period of  one year has elapsed since the date of disposal of  the previous application of that union. The  procedure then is set out.\n<\/p>\n
Regulations have been framed which are known as  Industrial Court Regulations, 1975. We are  concerned with Regulation 23 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 23.(ii) A notice to be displayed on the  Notice Board of the undertaking under  Section 12 of the Act, shall be in Form  8-A.\n<\/p>\n
If we peruse Form 8-A, in the first part it  provides for notice to the other unions having  membership of employees to show cause as to why  recognition should not be granted to the applicant  union. The first part also speaks about the notice  to the employers and employees likely to be affected  by the proposal as mentioned in the application. In  other words, notice is sent not only to other unions  in the establishment but also to the employees and employers likely to be affected by the proposal.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Respondent No. 1 had made an application on  27.8.2003 claiming membership of a total of 72  employees between February, 2003 and Page 3142 July, 2003.  There was a settlement entered into between  Respondent No. 1 and the employer, Respondent No.  2. In terms of Clause 42 of the settlement, apart  from some other payments, the subscription of  Rs. 480\/-had to be paid for four years. The annual  membership fee is Rs. 120\/-. By the settlement, the  employer reiterated that it continues to recognise  Respondent No. 1 as sole bargaining agent. This  settlement was to be in force for three years from  1str April, 2000. Another settlement was arrived at  on 31.3.2004, purely by way of interim arrangement  and it was further agreed that if the new settlement  was arrived at on the expiry of the settlement dated  15.1.2001, it will be effective from 1.4.2003.\n<\/p>\n
Sixty-two employees addressed a communication  dated 5.4.2005 to the Investigating Officer,  pointing out, that the Respondent No. 1 had no  locus standi, as all the employees had resigned from  the membership of Respondent No. 1 union from  2.4.2004 and had joined Adarsh Kamgar Sabha.  Respondent No. 1 had been informed by memorandum  dated 2.4.2004 in which it was also stated that the staff had filed individual affidavits before the  Industrial Court. It is also mentioned that a  settlement had been entered into between Respondent  No. 2 and Adarsh Kamgar Sabha of which the  employees were member for the period of 1.4.2003 to  31.3.2006 and as such the Respondent No. 1 does not  hold any membership and representative character  since 1.4.2003. The attention of the I.O. was  invited to Order dated 17.2.2005 of the Industrial  Court where it was set out that if there is any  dispute about membership for the relevant period,  the individual person can make grievance before the  I.O. The I.O. was requested to consider their  representation. It will be clear therefore, from  this that the intervener workman and 61 other  employees had resigned on 2.4.2004 whereas the  application by Respondent No. 1 was filed in  August, 2003 and for the relevant period for Feb.  to July, 2003. It is in this context that we shall  have to examine the issue which is under  consideration.\n<\/p>\n
7. Admittedly 62 employees presently are members of  Adarsh Kamgar Sabha. They were members of  Respondent No. 1 for the relevant period at the  time application was made for recognition. In these  circumstances, can they apply to the Industrial  Court hearing an application under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act, to be impleaded as respondents in  the application. In our opinion, to answer that, we  will have to consider the scheme for recognition  under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.  Act.\n<\/p>\n
12. Recognition of Union: (1) On receipt  of an application from a union for  recognition under Section 11 and on payment  of the prescribed fees, not exceeding rupees  five the Industrial Court shall, if it finds  the application on a preliminary scrutiny to  be in order, cause notice to be displayed on  the notice board of the undertaking,  declaring its intention to consider the said  application on the date specified in the  notice, and calling upon the other union or  unions, if any, having membership of  employees in that undertaking and the  employers and employees affected by the  proposal to show cause, within a prescribed  time, as to why recognition should not be  granted to the applicant-union.\n<\/p>\n
(2) If, after considering the objections, if  any, that may be received under sub Section (1) from any other union (hereinafter  referred to as “other Page 3143 union”) or employers or employees, if any, and if after holding  such enquiry in the matters as it deems fit,  the Industrial Court comes to the conclusion  that the conditions requisite for  registration specified in Section 11 are  satisfied, and the applicant Union also  complies with the conditions specified in  Section 19 of the Act, the Industrial Court  shall, subject to the provisions of this  section grant recognition to the  applicant-union under this Act, and issue a  certificate of such recognition in such form  as maybe prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(3) …\n<\/p>\n
(4) …\n<\/p>\n
(5) The Industrial Court shall not recognise  any union, if it is satisfied that the  application for its recognition is not made  bona fide in the interest of the employees,  but is made in the interest of the employer,  to the prejudice of the interest of the  employees.\n<\/p>\n
We have already made reference to Regulation 23  and to the notice in Form No. 8-A which has to be  displayed on the notice Board of the undertaking  under Regulation 23(2). Section 12(1) uses the  expression to “show cause”. The word “show cause” in Law Lexicon has been described as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “Show cause” Were the Court calls on a party  to “show cause”, that by necessary  implication would allow the other side to  answer (per Brett,L.J., Davis v. Spence 1  C.P.D. 721).\n<\/p>\n
The judgments cited at the bar may now be  considered. In Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha v. Benett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and Ors. 1985 (1) C.L.R.  118, decided on 6.11.1984, the issue under  consideration was, as to what was the relevant date  for considering requirement of 30% membership while  considering application under Section 11 of the  M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. After considering the  scheme of the Act and the Judgments cited, the  learned Bench was pleased to observe that it would  be with reference to the date on which the  application is made and not the date on which the  application is decided. It further held that only  on the Industrial Court prima facie being satisfied  about the merit of the application, that it causes a  notice to be displayed on the board of the  undertaking, declaring its intention to consider the  application and inviting objections from other Union  or unions if any, having membership of employees in the undertaking as well as from the employer. This  judgment really would not assist us in answering the  issue.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance next was also placed on the judgment in  Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Mazdoor Congress  and Ors. 1983 LAB I.C. 1034. This Court  observed, considering Section 13 which is the power  conferred to cancel recognition given to the  recognised union, that the period of six months  contemplated under Section 13 must be one which  precedes the issuance of the show cause notice. The  learned Bench therefore, noted the distinction  between secret ballot and enquiry and observed, that  secret ballot is a method of voting which is a  process of election, while the enquiry contemplated  by Section 13 of the Act of 1971 is a Page 3144 fact finding  process and as such the secret ballot cannot be used  by a quasi judicial enquiry to record a finding of  relevant facts as contemplated. In Fashion  Production Mazdoor Sabha v. Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi and Ors. 1985 II CLR 314, the issue was  whether an individual employee or employees can  initiate proceedings for cancellation of recognition  of union under Section 13 of the M.R.T.U. &  P.U.L.P. Act. After considering various provisions  the court held that the application contemplated  under Section 13 can be, by an union and not by an individual employee and that initiation of  proceedings by individual employee under Section 13  was not thought of by the Legislature. The learned  Single Judge deciding the matter, however, made a  distinction in the application for recognition by  holding that giving a right to apply for recognition  stands on a different footing than issuing a show  cause notice and considering the objections, if any,  raised by either the employer or employees.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the Petitioner, their learned  counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of  this Court in Dandekar v. Dandekars I.L.R. 6 Bom.  661. The learned Bench was considering the  expression “show cause” under Section 525 and 526 of  the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877. The court  observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 The term “to show cause” is a technical  term, having a well understood meaning. It  does not mean merely to allege cause, nor  even to make out that there is room for  argument, but both to allege cause and to  prove it to the satisfaction of the Court.  We think we may safely say that the term is  used in this sense in every other part ;of  he Code in which it occurs (e.g. in  Sections 479 and 485); and we do not see  how we should be justified in putting a  different construction upon it in Sections  525 and 526.\n<\/p>\n
8. As such what appears clear is that, when show  cause notice is issued by the Industrial Court,  calling on the other union or unions having  membership of employees or undertaking and to the  employees and employers likely to be affected by the  proposal, they have a right to appear before the  industrial Court and to show cause and not merely  file objections before the Investigating Officer.  The importance of the show cause notice is not only  to ascertain as to which union or unions has  majority but has to be viewed in the context of Sub-section (5) of Section 12, which notes that the  Industrial Court shall not recognize any union if it  is satisfied that the application for its  recognition is not made bona fide in the interest of  the employees but is made in the interest of the  employer, to the prejudice of the interest of the  employees. Therefore, while granting recognition,  the Industrial Court has to take into consideration,  the bona fides of the application and whether such  application made, is in the interest of the  employees and or is made in the interest of the  employer to the prejudice of the interest of the  employees. This would necessarily require an enquiry in which those to whom show cause notice is  served and have filed their objections have to be  heard. This can only be done if they are allowed to  participate in the proceedings. Participation in  the proceedings would be after they being joined as  parties in the proceedings. They are not witnesses  who are being summoned to give their evidence.  Section 12 confers a right Page 3145 on the union to be  recognized, only after it satisfy the necessary  tests including the requirement of Section 12(5) of  the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 13 provides that recognition of the union  can be cancelled. One of the grounds is that, it  was recognized under a mistake, misrepresentation or  fraud or that the membership of the union has, for a  continuous period of six calender months, fallen  below the minimum required under Section 11 for its  recognition. These grounds are post recognition.  The Act and the rules by virtue of Section 11(2)  contemplates that the application shall be disposed  of by the Industrial Court as far as possible within  three months from the date of receipt of the  application, where a group of concerns in any  industry which is notified to be one undertaking for  which recognition applied for is situated in the  same local area, and in any other case, within four  months. The time limit for disposal has to be read as directory, though expression used is “shall”. It  is not necessary for us in the course of this  discussion to examine why it is directory and not  mandatory. Yet another provision in the matter of  recognition is Section 14, under which an Union  applies to be recognised in place of the recognized  union, on the ground that it has larger membership  of the employees employed in such undertaking. Such  application will be considered only if a period of  two years has elapsed, since the date of  registration of the recognized Union. The proviso  further contemplates that such application may not  be entertained unless a period of one year has  elapsed since the date of disposal of the previous  application of that union. A reading of Section 13  and 14 would therefore, show that power has been  conferred on the Industrial Court to cancel  registration and or to recognize another union in  the establishment or undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
9. What happens in a case where an Union which had  a majority for the relevant period when the  application was made in the course of the  proceedings, ceases to enjoy the confidence of the  majority. In such a case, can the Industrial Court  while considering grant of recognition under Section  12(5) grant recognition by ignoring the subsequent  events. Would these subsequent events have an important bearing for consideration whether the  application is bona fide and in the interest of the  employees. No doubt the language used in the  section says that the application must be made in  the interest of employer to the prejudice of the  interest of the employees. This would be a finding  of fact which will have to be recorded taking into  consideration various factors. What however, is  important to note is that any union or employees who  reply to the show cause will be in a position under  Section 12(5) to place material as to why an  application is not bona fide and in the interest of  the employees but is in the interest of the employer  to the prejudice of the interest of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
It must still be noted that admittedly the  Petitioner and other 61 employees had paid the  membership fees for a period of three years which  included the relevant period in terms of the  settlement which requires the management to deduct  the union membership fees from the employees wages  and or and or establishment and pay the same to the  Union. This has been done in the instant case.  This is permissible. Page 3146 The law on the subject may be  adverted to. In Management of Karnataka State Road  Transport Corporation v. KSRTC Staff & Workers’  Federation and Anr.<\/a> 1999(1) 645 in the matter of  check off facility. The Supreme Court was pleased to observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 Pay Roll Check off Facility, as noted  earlier cannot be considered to be a benefit  available to the workmen. At the most, it  will be a facility to the Union to get an  ensured method of securing membership fees  from its members on regular basis.\n<\/p>\n
We have considered this judgment as our attention  was invited to the judgment of a learned Division  Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Textile  and General Labour Organization and Anr. v.  Commissioner of Labour and Ors. 2006 I LLJ 86,  where the Bench has taken a view in a case where  there was a clause in the settlement, for deduction  of moneys towards the subscription of membership.  The learned Bench was of the view that in the  settlement arrived at between the parties, if  anything which is not an industrial dispute is  settled between employer and representative Union or  Union and its members, then such settlement would  have no binding effect. In that case, it was held  that the practice of deducting subscription towards  membership fees would not be an industrial dispute.  It may be mentioned that in the judgment of the Apex  Court in the Management of K.S.R.T.C. (supra), the  provisions for check off facility was based on individual members giving authorisations to the  Management to deduct subscriptions of the members of  the Union from their wages. In other words, there  can be check off facility for deduction of  membership fees on the member agreeing to such  practice. Payment of fees by employees of the  Undertaking would entitle the Union to apply for  recognition if it meets the tests of Sections 11 and  12 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. That however,  will not prevent an employee though for the relevant  period, such employee may have paid the membership  fees from showing cause as to why the Applicant  Union cannot be recognised.\n<\/p>\n
10. It would be clear from a reading of Sections  11, 12, 13 and 14 that the Legislature has provided  a scheme whereby the Union having a majority of  support amongst the workmen in the  establishment\/undertaking is only to be recognized.  Section 12 requires that it is not merely support of  the majority of workmen which must be not less than  30% of the employees employed, but it mandates that  the Industrial court must be satisfied that  application for registration is made bona fide in  the interest of the employees and is not made in the  interest of the employer, to the prejudice of the  interest of the employees. There is therefore, a  power in the Industrial Court even if on the date of the application if the union satisfies the  requirement of Section 11, in case of large scale  erosion of support, not to grant recognition. Any  Union having no support or its support falls  drastically, then it would be construed on the facts  of each case that there is reasonable ground to  believe that it is bound to fall prey to interests  other than the interest of the employees. This is  the reason why Section 11 contemplates that the  application must be disposed off within a time  frame. Under Section 13, the Industrial Court is  empowered to cancel the recognition after giving  show cause notice for reasons Page 3147 set out therein  including that the membership of the union for a  continuous period of six calender months, has fallen  below the minimum. This power is to be exercised  post recognition. If therefore, a union has lost  its membership during the pendency of the  proceedings for a continuous period of six calender  months, then cannot this legislative concept be also  considered while considering Section 12(5). We are  of the opinion that it can be so read considering  the powers conferred on the Industrial Court.  Similarly Section 14 provides for subsequent  contingencies for cancellation of the certificate of  a recognised union and registering another union.  The object behind the legislation seems to be that  only genuine unions capable of representing the interest of the employees should be recognized and  that the employees are not forced to accept a union  to represent them in whom they have lost confidence.\n<\/p>\n
11. We may now consider the impugned order. The  impugned order proceeds on the footing that 64  employees who had filed affidavits, cannot be  impleaded as parties on the basis that they had  switched over from the Membership of another Union  in the course of the proceedings. The learned  Industrial Court further observed that essential  prerequisites for making the application for  recognition prescribed under the Act was not applied  by the other Union whose membership is accepted by  the present workman. In our opinion, that would be  immaterial. Under Section 12 recognition is given  not only because Union applying under Section 11 has  a majority but the Industrial Court must be  satisfied considering Section 12(5) of the Act, that  such application is bona fide and in the interest of  workmen. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned  order dated 7.2.2005 has to be quashed and set aside  and the application made by Petitioner will have to  be allowed. It will be open to the Petitioner to  apply to sue in a representative capacity or if  Respondent No. 1 consents, to be sued through the  Union, which they have now joined or examine the  other employees as witnesses to show, considering Section 12(5) as to why Respondent No. 7 Union  shall not be recognised. Even the Union which the  employees have joined can apply to be joined if it  meets with the requirements of provisions of the Act  and the rules as explained in this judgment, though  in the instant case, the employees joined the other  union on April, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
12. Considering the above, Rule made absolute in  terms of Prayer Clause (a). The application is  allowed. The applicant tobe added as respondent or  the applicant be permitted to sue in a  representative capacity, if the applicant follows  the required procedure.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be  no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2007 (1) MhLj 761 Author: F Rebello Bench: F Rebello, A V Mohta JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J. Page 3138 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The Petitioner employed with M\/s. Crawford Bayley & Co, had made an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5018,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\",\"name\":\"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006"},"wordCount":5018,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006","name":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade ... on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T09:42:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gireesh-u-g-menon-vs-mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-a-trade-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, A Trade … on 26 September, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}