- (1.) HOTEL Hindusthan International is a five star hotel situated in the southern part of Calcutta. There were 406 employees at the relevant time. The appellant is a registered trade union being affiliated to centre of Indian Trade Unions ("citu") whereas the respondent No. 4 in a. P. O. No. 454 of 2006 is another registered trade union being affiliated to indian National Trade Union Congress ("intuc" ). Both the unions claimed that they had the majority support of the workers. Disputes arose in september, 2003 when the appellant raised an industrial dispute with regard to payment of bonus. Management did not adhere to their charter of demand as according to the management they had already entered into a bipartite settlement with the other union being the respondent No. 4 and all 406 numbers of employees accepted the benefit derived out of the said bipartite settlement. The appellants resorted to demonstration. The management approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition as against the police Authority alleging Police inaction. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated April 27, 2004 disposed of the writ petition by observing that the agitating employees should resort to raising industrial dispute by referring the matter to the Labour Court. The appellant preferred an appeal. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal vide order dated april 6, 2005. The relevant extract is quoted below :-"while pressing the appeal the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhattacharyya says that he would be satisfied if direction is given to the Registrar, Trade Union to consider the application made under section 28a by the appellants Union. He does not however, press for any other relief excepting this. In that view, a direction is given to the Registrar that if an application is made under Section 28a of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, such application shall be decided in accordance with law treating the hotel as "industry". We hope that if such application is made it shall be disposed of within six months from the making thereof. "
(2.) IN terms of the said order the Registrar of Trade Union convened a meeting of both the rival unions. The Registrar, however, did not invite the management in the said meeting. After hearing the rival contentions of both the unions the Registrar passed a reasoned order appearing at pages 51 to 53 of the Paper Book. The Registrar observed that the appellant did not have the right under Section 28a to apply for being recommended as sole bargaining agent under Section 28a of the Trade Union Act as the concerned hotel was neither an "industrial establishment" nor a "class of industry". After observing as such, the Registrar held that since the Hon'ble high Court directed him to consider an application under Section 28a he would have to comply such order The Registrar asked the management to recognise appellant as the sole bargaining agent for two years with effect from January 1,2006 vide communication dated December 15, 2005 appearing at page 54 of the Paper book.
(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reasoned order of the registrar the management as well as the Respondent No. 4 filed two different writ petitions being W. P. No. 2250 of 2005 and W. P. No. 2265 of 2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the management by quashing the said order of the Registrar on the ground that the management was not given any hearing. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the State that the management did not have any right of audience in connection with the proceeding for selection of the sole bargaining agent under Section 28a. His Lordship also allowed the other writ petition filed by the respondent No. 4 by holding that Section 28a did not any application in the instant case as it was neither an "industrial establishment" nor a "class of industry". Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing both the writ petitions the appellants filed the above appeals.;