MALWA VANASPATI MAZDOOR UNION Vs. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner The Malwa Vanaspati Mazdoor Union, indore seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12-12-1974 (Annexure E) passed by the Registrar of Representative Unions, Indore (respondent No. 2) cancelling the recognition of the petitioner under section 16 (b) (vi)of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the order dated 7-2-1975 (Annexure F) passed by the Industrial Court in an appeal under section 22 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), affirming the order of the Registrar.

(2.) THE petitioner was admittedly the recognised Union of the Employees of Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd. , Indore when a strike was commenced therein on 3-6-1970. The employer applied to the Labour Court, indore under section 61 of the Act for a declaration of that strike to be illegal. By the order dated 31-7-1973 (Annexure C), the Labour Court declared that strike to be illegal. One of the prayers made in the application (Annexure A)to the Labour Court was that the individuals shown therein as non-applicants 2 to 6 be declared to have instigated and abetted the strike. It is significant that no such prayer was made in respect of the Union. Issue No. 2 was framed by the Labour Court to cover the question of instigation and abatement of the strike by the non-applicants 2 to 6 mentioned in Annexure A and was answered in the affirmative. However, no question arose for deciding whether the illegal strike had been instigated or abetted by the Union. A revision under section 66 of the Act was preferred to the Industrial Court, Madhya pradesh, Indore by the Union against declaration of the strike to be illegal. That revision was dismissed by the order dated 19-6-1974 (Annexure D) passed by the President, Industrial Court. However, reading contention No. 3 mentioned in para 2 of Annexure D and para 9 of that order, it does appear that the Industrial Court enlarged the scope of issue framed by the trial Court to cover the question of instigation and abetment of the strike so as to include within its ambit such an allegation also against the Union even though the question for decision related only to the non-applicants other than the Union. The result was that the Industrial Court's order (Annexure D) read as a whole amounts to a finding that the Union was also guilty of instigation and abetment of the illegal strike even though that was not a question for determination by the Labour Court against whose order the Industrial Court was hearing a revision and that too at the instance of the Union itself challenging declaration of the strike as illegal. After conclusion of the above proceeding resulting in the aforesaid strike being declared illegal, the Registrar of Representative Unions commenced a proceeding for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner as the representative Union, under section 16 (b) (vi) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, without himself reaching any conclusion of his own, the Registrar feeling bound by the aforesaid decision of the Industrial Court vide Annexure D, cancelled the recognition of the petitioner under section 16 (b) (vi) of the Act by his order (Annexure E) dated 12-12-1974. The only relevant part of the order is as follows:-

(3.) SHRI M. R. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the registrar abdicated his function in not deciding the question himself and treating the same to be concluded by the decision of the Industrial Court vide annexure D in the earlier proceeding, wherein the present question requiring decision of the Registrar, was not even involved. He adds, that at best the earlier decision could be treated as a piece of evidence and not decisive of the question, provided the question of incitement or abetment by the Union was involved therein. He contends that the proceeding before the Registrar under section 16 of the Act is a separate and independent proceeding subsequent to declaration of the strike as illegal wherein the disputed questions of fact have to be examined and decided afresh on enquiry and not merely with reference to the decision in the earlier proceeding. To illustrate his argument he said, that in a given case the strike declared to be illegal may have commenced spontaneously and continued thereafter against the wishes of the Union since rivalry amongst several Unions is not unknown. In such a case, he says, there could be no question of holding the Union to be liable even though the strike would be illegal. It is for this reason, he argues, that the liability of the Union has to be examined after the strike has been declared illegal and if the Registrar on enquiry is satisfied that such a liability can be fastened on the Union for the illegal strike, then alone the question of cancellation of its recognition under this provision arises.