GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 399

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.N. SINGH, P.B. SAWANT

Case summary

pondent-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha-which is a rival union, challenged by way of a writ petition the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner....

Judgment text

GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS. APRIL 16, 1991 [K. N. SINGH AND P. B. SAWANT, JJ. ] Labour Law: Code ofDiscipline-'lmplementation Machinery- State Labour Commission-Verification Officer-Who is. The appellant, Rourkela Sramik Sangh, is a trade onion in the Rourkela Steel Plant. It addressed a letter to the Implementation and .. Evaluation Officer-cum-Lahonr Commissioner, under the Code of Discipline 1958, whereby it sought recognition as the sole bargaining agent in the Rourkela Steel Plant. For this purpose, it requested the Labour Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the Plant and to recommend for recognition of the union having majority of the membership.

The Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer authorised the Depnty Labour Commissioner to carry out the process of verification of the membership of the registered trade unions, who in torn passed orders calling upon the different trade unions to produce " the necessary records. The Isl res. pondent-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha-which is a rival union, challenged by way of a writ petition the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner. At the same time, the appellant union tiled a writ petition seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, to ' complete the process of verification and recognition within a stipulated time. ... The High Court by its common judgment allowed the Isl respondent's petition and dismissed the appellant's petition.

The High Court held that since the appellant-Union had addressed its application for recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implementalion Officer, the same was not properly made as the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition. The ... decision of the High Court was based on the finding that the Impler.. c;. talion and Evaluation Officer was not the "Implementation Machinery" within the meaning of the Code of Discipline. Allowing the appeal and directing the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner to complete the proceedings of recognition as expeditiously as possible, this Court, HELD: (1) The "Implementation Machinery" envisaged in section 11 of the Code of Discipline consists of two separate Organisations, viz. , Implementation Units in the respective Labour Departments, and Tripartite Implementation Committees at the Central, State and local levels.

Each of the Organisations has been assigned different functions and they are independent of each other while carrying out the same. Thus, the constitutions of the Implementation units and Implementation Committee, are different and they function in different areas. [4068-4070] (2) Since the Implementation Unit/Implementation Officer entrusted with the task of granting recognition to the unions in the State of Orissa was the Labour Commissioner of the State, the appellant-Sangh had rightly approached the Labour Commissioner for the purpose. [409A] (3) Since the State Labour Commissioner was named as the Implementation Officer who is none but the officer in charge of the Implementation Unit, the State Labour Commissioner as the Impl~men tation Officer has an option either to carry out the verification of membership himself or to entrust it to some other officer like the Deputy Labour Commissioner as in the present case. That was only an entrustment of a ministerial work.

I409D] (4) The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present case is the Verification Officer and under clause (10) of Appendix IV, he ha• to send his report to the Implementation Officer or Unit, i. e. , the State Labour Commissioner, and the State Labour Commissioner will in turn communicate his decision as the State Implementation Machinery to the management as well as the Unions. [409E] (5) The High Court was wrong in holding that the Implementation Unit or the Labour Commissioner was not the "Implementation Machinery" but only a Verification Officer. [409C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1824 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 14. 5. 1990 of the Orissa High Colitt in O. J. C. No. 4426 of 1989. ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA ISAWANT, J. I 401 Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant. I Gobind Das, S. B. Upadhyay, Harish Salve, Ms. Kirti Misra and "' S. R. Grover for the Respondents. · The Jodgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J.

Leave granted. 2. The only question which falls for consideration in the present case is-what is the meaning of "Implementation Machinery" within the meaning of the Code of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") ratified by all Central Employers' and Workers' Organisations at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May 1958 and which came into force from June 1, 1958. The question assumes importance in the present case because the High Court by the impugned decision has held that since the appellant-Union had addressed iis application for recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implementation Officer, the same was not properly lJ made and the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition. 3.

The admitted facts are that the appellant Rourkela Sramik Sangh had addressed a letter on October 9, 1989 to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Comissionner-Orissa, Cuttack intimating him that as per the Code it had called upon the Rourkela Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent in the Plant, but that the Plant had not replied to the same. The appellant in the said letter had further requested the Labour Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the said Plant and to recommend for recognition, the Union having majority of the membership. On receipt of this request, the Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer authorised the Deputy Labour Commissioner on December 5, 1989 to carry out the process of verification of the membership of the registered trade unions.

·In pursuance of the same, the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order on December 14, 1989 calling upon the different trade unions to produce the necessary records within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. These orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were chailenged by the 1st respondcnt-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha which is a rival union in the Plant by way of a Writ Petition being OJC No. 4426 of 1989 in ihe High Court of Orissa. At the same time; the appeliant- Union filed a Writ Petition being OJC No. 361 of 1990 seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the verification of the membership of the Unions and to fix a time-limit to complete the process and recognition and for ancillary reliefs.

Both the writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and by its impuged common judg- ·ment, the Court was pleased to allow the 1st respondent's petition and dismiss the appellant's petition. The decision of the Court was based only on the finding that the Implementation and Evaluation Officer was not the "Implementation Machinery" under the Code and the Implementation Officer had no authority to process the application for recognition. 4. The relevant provisions of the Code are as follows: Section II of the Code deals with "Implementation Machinery" and is headed as such. It begins as follows: "2. To implement the Code of Discipline, labour enactments, awards and agreements, a separate machinery has been set up at the Centre and in all States. This machinery ii comprises: (a) implementation units in Labour Departments, and (b) tripartite implementation committees at the Central, State and local levels.

" Thereafter it proceeds to deal with Implementation Units and states as follows: "(i) Implementation Units: 3. A Central Implementation and Evaluation Division has been set up in the Ministry of Labour and Employment under the charge of a Joint Secretary. In the States also, Implementation Units have been set up under the charge of either a whole-time officer of the Labour Department or of the State Labour Commissioners. According to the recommendations of the Labour Ministers' Conference held in January, 1960 the Implementation Officer in each State should, as far as possible, he whole-time and of sufficient seniority. The following functions have been assigned to ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH v. MAZDOOR SABHA [SAWANT, J. ] 403 Implementation Units: (1) to ensure Implementation of the Code of Discipline, Code of Conduct, labour enactments, awards, agreements, etc.

, with a view to reducing at the source the main cause of industrial strife; (2) to supplement the work of the Industrial Relations Machinery in taking preventive action where disputes are brewing and in settling long pending disputes which could not be settled otherwise; (3) to maintain liaison with Central, State or local units, as the case may be, to ensure effective working of the implementation machinery; (4) to arrange meetings of Implementation Committees and to function as their Secretariat; (5) to bring about out-of-court settlement of-cases pending in High Courts and the Supreme Court; (6) to ensure that cases are screened by the Screening Committees set up by the Central Employers' and Workers' Organisations before appeals are filed in higher courts; (7) to evaluate; (a) major strikes, lock-outs and disputes in order to fix responsibility for them, and (b) the working of important labour legislations, awards, policies, decisions, etc.

in order to see how far they have produced the results which they were intended to produce and suggest measures to improve them. (8) to collect and maintain necessary statistics regarding implementation of the Code of Discipline, labour enactments awards etc. xxxxxxx It then deals with Implementation·Committees and states as follows: