In the absence of any law relating to recognition of trade unions in Tamil Nadu, the claims of unions could be based only upon circulars and various communications issued by the Union Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport, Depatment of Shipping, the Madras High Court has ruled.

In view of one such circular issued by the Ministry on May 17, 2007, the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, had communicated that since various unions were seeking recognition pointing out that there were similar unions which had been granted recognition, and, therefore, pending finalisation of a recognition policy, the Chennai Port Trust was directed to consider grant of recognition to the first 7 major unions.

The Port & Dock Labour Union, affiliated to the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking for a direction to consider their representation dated December 22, 2010, and declare that theirswas a recognised union and also to confer all statutory benefits as were extended to other unions according to the letter dated May 17, 2007 of the Union Government.

According to the petitioner-union, they were having a membership of 124 workers according to the check-off system, whereas, unions such as Port Dock & Water Front Workers Federation of India and Madras Harbour Workers Union affiliated to the AITUC and the WFTU were having smaller membership.

The Chennai Port Trust (R-2) contended that according to the settlement, dated May 25, 2001 u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there were three unions which were recognised and they were affiliated to the HMS and the AITUC.

Up to filing of the writ petition, several unions were recognised and the petitioner was not one of them. R-2 produced a copy of the communication dated February 18, 2010, sent by the Chairman to the Ministry enclosing the membership strength of each union, which was done by way of check-off conducted for the year 2010.

While the name of the petitioner-union found a place in Sl No 8, the other seven unions were admittedly having more membership than the petitioner.

The Petitioner, in a rejoinder, submitted that check-off verification was made during 2010 whereas in 2011, they had higher membership.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard the petition, referred to the judgment of the Division Bench, presided by Mr A.K. Ganguly, Chief Justice (as he then was) in K.V. Sridharan vs S. Sundaramoorthy [reported in 2009 (1) LLN 719 (DB) ], which, inter alia, observed: “. . . Therefore, by way of registration of a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the trade union does not become an Authority under Art 12 of the Constitution of India. It continues to remain just a private body and all disputes relating to election of such a private body cannot be canvassed or challenged in a writ petition. The said Act does not make any provision for recognition of such a union. Any recognition of union, if it is a union relating to employees of the Central Government is governed by some departmental circulars. Those circulars are administrative in nature and not statutory. Therefore, those circulars also cannot be enforced in a writ petition”.

In the light of the binding legal precedents, the relief claimed by the petitioner could not be countenanced by this Court, the Judge held. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW