The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Karnataka and Another vs B.P.L. Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha (Regd.) and Another

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—These two writ appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 24-3-1999 passed in W.P. No. 976 of 1999 B.P.L. Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha (Registered), Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others, on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned show-cause notice at Annexure-G, and holding that the registration of the petitioner-Union by the 2nd respondent was legally valid. In other words, the Writ Appeal No. 3530 of 1999 is filed by Commissioner of Labour and Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions; whereas W.A. No. 3701 of 1999 is filed by BPL Limited (in short, ''the Management''). For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the writ petitioner is referred to as the petitioner-Union.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ appeals may be stated as under:

That on 10-6-1998 the petitioner-Union presented an application to the 2nd respondent for registration of the Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The 2nd respondent on the very same day registered the Union and issued certificate of registration. Thereafter, the petitioner-Union submitted its charter of demands dated 31-7-1998 to the Chairman of the Management (BPL Limited). The Management as per its letter dated 16-11-1998 informed the Registrar of Trade Union, Karnataka contending that it was not empowered to register the said Union as whose objects were not confined to one State. After the subject was discussed in a meeting convened by the Minister for Labour meeting on 18-11-1998, and obtaining opinion of the Law Department, the Commissioner of Labour was directed to issue notice to the petitioner-Union as to why the registration of Union should not be withdrawn as the objects of the said Union were for all over India. On 19-11-1998 the workmen of the petitioner-Union commenced strike. Thereafter, so many meetings were held to maintain industrial peace and congenial atmosphere in the industry. Respondent 2 issued a show-cause notice dated 28-11-1998 u/s 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in Form ''D'' giving 60 days notice to show cause as to why registration of petitioner-Union should not be withdrawn as the objects of the Union not confined to one State. On 28-11-1998, the petitioner-Union addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner stating that they had not enrolled membership from units outside Karnataka, and they made suitable amendments to their bye-laws, and submitted an application dated 27-11-1998 for amendment substituting the words "Karnataka only" for the words "India or Outside Karnataka". The petitioner-Union replied to the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent and to the letter of the 1st respondent and also filed Writ Petition No. 976 of 1999 seeking writ of certiorari/to withdraw the show-cause notice dated 25-11-1998.

The learned Single Judge after hearing arguments, perusing pleadings and referring certain decisions of the Apex Court, held that the registration of the petitioner-Union by the 2nd respondent was legally valid and in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed the show-cause notice at Annexure-G. Therefore, the Management has preferred Writ Appeal No. 3701 of 1999 challenging the impugned order; whereas, writ appeal filed by Labour Commissioner and Deputy Registrar of Trade Union in W.A. No. 3530 of 1999 is to expunge the adverse remarks and observations made by the learned Single Judge against them and also set aside the impugned order.

Thus, both the writ appeals are directed against one and the same order. Since these two writ appeals are directed against one and the same order. We proceed to pass common order.

Heard arguments of the learned Advocate General, Sri K. Kasturi, Senior Advocate for the Management and Sri T.S. Anantharam, Advocate for the petitioner-Union.

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsels for the parties, we formulate the following questions for our consideration:

(i) Whether the registration of the petitioner-Union should be disturbed?

(ii) Whether it is a fit case to expunge the adverse remarks made against the authorities of the Labour Department?

Our answer to the above questions is as under:

Question No. (i): In the negative.

Question No. (ii): In the affirmative.

Question No. (i).--At the very outset, we must mention that Sri A.N. Jayaram, learned Advocate General, submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed strictures against the authorities of the Labour Department without affording them an opportunity of hearing and contrary to the facts and records and they are liable to be expunged. He also submitted that since the respondent 2-Authority has been registering Unions like that of petitioner-Union for more than 40 years, by virtue of the power conferred by a notification bearing No. 178/48, dated 26-5-1952 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India, but without a further notification by the State Government. Therefore, it was submitted that it is a fit case not to disturb the registration of the petitioner-Union and others, so far registered, and the State Government would take necessary steps to issue the required notification in due course. The learned Advocate General further submitted that there was no need for the petitioner-Union to invoke the writ jurisdiction even before taking final decision with reference to the impugned show-cause notice and the writ petition was premature and unnecessary.

The learned Senior Advocate Sri K. Kasturi, appearing for the Management, who also fairly submitted that the strictures passed against the Labour Authorities may be expunged and allow the registration of the petitioner-Union to continue like others, pending issuance of proper notification by the State Government in accordance with law.

Sri T.S. Ananthram, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union, submitted that the learned Single Judge after perusing the records reached the conclusion that the Labour Authorities have intentionally harassed the petitioner-Union, and therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in passing strictures against the Labour Authorities and therefore they need not be expunged.

It is a case relating to registration of Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in short, ''the Act''). Therefore, we refer to Section 2 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act says that, "the appropriate Government" means in relation to Trade Unions whose objects are not confined to one State, the Central Government, and in relation to others Trade Unions, the State Government. Section 3 of the Act deals with regard to appointment of Registrars, which reads as follows.--

Appointment of Registrars.--(1) The appropriate Government shall appoint a person to be the Registrar of Trade Unions for each State.

(2) The appropriate Government may appoint as many Additional and Deputy Registrars of Trade Unions as it thinks fit for the purpose of exercising and discharging, under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar, such powers and functions of the Registrar under this Act as it may, by order, specify and define the local limits within which any such Additional or Deputy Registrar shall exercise and discharge the powers and functions so specified.

(3) Subject to the provisions of any order under sub-section (2), where an Additional or Deputy Registrar exercises and discharges the powers and functions of a Registrar in an area within which the registered office of a Trade Union is situated, the Additional or Deputy Registrar shall be deemed to be the Registrar in relation to the Trade Union for the purposes of this Act".

The petitioner''s Union submitted its application dated 22-5-1998 to the concerned authority u/s 5 of the Act, along with the required enclosures seeking registration of the petitioner''s Union viz., BPL Group of Companies'' Karmikara Sangha, Bangalore under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Admittedly, as per the aims and objects of the petitioner-Union, it was to organise and unite the employees working in the BPL Limited and its associated sister concerns all over India. Since the aims and objects of the Union are not confined to one State, the Central Government is the appropriate Government, According to Section 5 of the Act, every application for registration of a Trade Union, shall be made to the Registrar, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the Rules of the Trade Union and a statement of certain particulars.

Admittedly, after coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Central Government, on 26th of February, 1952, by a notification, passed the following order.--

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late Department of Labour No. I-3006, dated 16th January, 1941, the President hereby entrusts with effect from 1st March, 1952 to the Government of each. Part ''A'' state except the Government of Orissa and the Government of each Part ''B'' state, except the Government of Jammu and Kashmir with their consent, the functions of the Central Government under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926), in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to and whose head office is situated in that State".

The learned Single Judge also has made reference to the notification issued by the President of India and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, in which case, the Supreme Court considered the law laid down in the case of Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan Vs. F.N. Rana and Others, The learned Single Judge has held that the law laid down in the above said Jayantilal''s case was applicable on all the fours to the instant case, and therefore, held that the expression "appropriate Government" has to be read as the "Karnataka Government or the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions of the Division having territorial jurisdiction over the area, in which the petitioner-Union is registered".

It is pertinent to mention that the Government of Karnataka by its notification bearing No. LLH 912 LBW 60, dated 10-1-1961, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of Trade Unions Act, 1926 and in supersession of earlier notification dated 27-2-1952, the erstwhile Government of Mysore appointed the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bangalore as the Registrar of the Trade Union for the whole of the State of Mysore. Admittedly, the State Government has not issued further notification following the Government of India notification dated 27-2-1952 as done by the State of Bombay (new State of Maharashtra) under Act. Since more than 40 years, the Unions like that of petitioner, have been registered by the authorities concerned, and many such Unions have entered settlements. Therefore, as submitted by the learned Advocate General and Sri K. Kasturi, it is in the fitness of things not to disturb the registration of the petitioner-Union, on a technical ground.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, we answer question No. (i) raised by us in the negative.

Question No. (ii).--We are of the considered opinion that without affording an opportunity of hearing the officials, the learned Single Judge has passed strictures against the officials, and therefore they are liable to be set aside. Hence, we answer Question No. (ii), in the affirmative.

For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order.--

(i) The registration of the petitioner-Union and the like, so far made, shall not be disturbed.

(ii) The appropriate Government viz., the Government of Karnataka is directed to take necessary steps to issue proper notification in pursuance of the powers conferred upon it by the Government of India, in the notification dated 26-2-1952 within two months from today.

(iii) The strictures/adverse remarks made against the Labour Department Authorities during the course of passing the impugned order, are set aside.

Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs.