http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: GENERAL SECRETARY ROURKELA SRAMIK SANGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/04/1991

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1250            1991 SCR  (2) 399  JT 1991 (2)   272        1991 SCALE  (1)743

ACT:      Labour   Law:   Code   of    Discipline-’Implementation Machinery-State  Labour Commission-Verification  Officer-Who is.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant, Rourkela Sramik Sangh, is a trade  union in  the Rourkela Steel Plant. It addressed a letter  to  the Implementation     and     Evaluation     Officer-cum-Labour 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 requrested  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 Deputy Labour Commissioner to carry out  the process of verification of the membership of the  registered trade  unions,  who in turn passed orders calling  upon  the different trade unions to produce the necessary records.      The  Ist respondent-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 filed 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  Ist 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  Implementation 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 Implementation and  Evaluation Officer  was not the "Implementation Machinery"  within  the meaning of the Code of Discipline.                                                        400      Allowing  the  appeal and directing the  Deputy  Labour

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

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. [406H-407D]      (2)   Since  the   Implementation   Unit/Implementation Officer  entrusted with the task of granting recognition  to the union 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 Implementation 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. [409D]      (4) The Deputy Labour Commissioner in the present  case is  the  Verification  Officer  and  under  clause  (10)  of Appendix IV, he has 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]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1824  of 1991.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  14.5.1990  of  the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 4426 of 1989.                                                        401      Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant.      Gobind  Das,  S.B. Upadhyay, Harish Salve,   Ms.  Kirti Misra and S.R. Grover for the Respondents.      The Judgment 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   its   application    for recognition  not to the Implementation Machinery but to  the Implementation  Officer, the same was not properly made  and the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate  the process of recognition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    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 challenged  by  the Ist  respondent-Rourkela  Mazdoor  Sabha which  is  a  rival  union in the Plant by  way  of  a  Writ Petition  being  OJC No. 4426 of 1989 in the High  Court  of Orissa.  At the same time, the appellant-                                                        402 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 judgment,   the   Court  was  pleased  to  allow   the   Ist 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 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 State 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

                                                      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.          X     X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X   X It  then deals with Implementation Committees and states  as follows:                                                        404          "(iii) Implementation Committees:          6. The Implementation Committees at the Centre  and          in the States represent both Central Employers’ and          Workers’ Organisations.  The Central Implementation          and  Evaluation  Committee  consists  of  an  equal          number of employers’ and workers’  representatives-          four    each    from   the    Central    employers’          Organisations.    They   are   nominated   by   the          organisations  to  which  they belong  and  not  by          Government  .  State/Administration  Implementation          Committees  are also required to be constituted  in          consultation   with  the  Central  Employers’   and          Workers’    Organisations   wherever   they    have          affiliates  in  the  States/Territories  concerned.          These  Committees  are  presided  over  as  far  as          possible  by respective Labour Ministers.   At  the          local  level,  the  Committees  comprise  an  equal          number of representatives of employers and  workers          in the area and are presided over by an officer  of          the  Labour Department of by a prominent person  in          the region.          7.   The  functions  assigned   to   Implementation          Committees  by  the Standing  Labour  Committee  in          October, 1957 and other Committees are as follows:-          (1)  to  examine the extent  of  implementation  of          agreements,  awards and settlements and  to  advise          the parties which are anxious to implement an award          but are unable to do so, as to how the difficulties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

        in implementation could be overcome.          (2)  to  fix responsibility for violations  of  the          Code  in  cases  brought  to  its  notice  by   the          Implementation Unit or in those enquired into by it          or  a sub-committee appointed by it.  In doing  so,          the  Committee  may hear the parties  concerned  if          considered necessary.          (3)  To consider cases for out-of-court  settlement          with the consent of the parties, screening of cases          of  industrial disputes before appeals  are  filed,          etc.  that  may  be brought to its  notice  by  the          Implementation  Unit or such other cases  that  the          Committee  may  desire, to bring  about  harmonious          labour-management relations.                                                        405          (4) to review periodically the working of the  Code          in their respective spheres.          (5)  to maintain a two-way exchange  of  experience          between the Committees at the lowest level and  the          Central Committee.  At points of importance arising          at any level should be given wide circulation." The  Code  further assigns the  Implementation  Units  among others   the  duty  to  provide  the  secretariat  for   the Implementation Committees and to ensure that their decisions are  implemented  promptly.   We have  also  seen  from  the enumeration  of  the functions of the  Implementation  Units above,  that  the  Units have to  arrange  meetings  of  the Implementation   Committees   and  to  function   as   their secretariat.      5.  Section  IV  of the Code  provides  for  "Grievance Procedure".   It states, among other things, that it is  the responsibility  of  the  Central  and   State/Administration Implementation Units to ensure that a grievance procedure is set  up  by  every management  in  consultation  with  their workers.      6.  Section  V of the Code deals  with  Recognition  of Unions and states as follows:          "11. Except in those States where the procedure  to          conferrecognition  on  unions  is  governed  by   a          statute   the   conditions   and   procedure    for          recognitions   of  unions  are  governed   by   the          provisions  of the Code of Discipline.  It  is  the          responsibility  of Implementation Units  to  ensure          that   recognition   is  granted   to   unions   by          managements  wherever they satisfy  the  prescribed          criteria.   The procedure to be followed  for  this          purpose  is  at  Appendix  IV.   For  the  sake  of          uniformity  the  State  Implementation  Units   are          requested to adopt it." Appendix IV which is referred to above is headed as follows:          "PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF UNIONS          FOR  THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNITION UNDER THE  CODE  OF          DISCIPLINE" It  is not necessary to set out the entire procedure  stated in the said Appendix. A reference to only first who  clauses and clause (10) of the                                                        406 said  procedure would suffice for our purpose.   They  state follows:          "(1)  On receipt of a representation from  a  union          for recognition under the Code of Discipline    the          Central/State  Implementation Machinery will  first          ascertain:          (a)   the  names  of  unions  functioning  in   the          establishment  together with their number and  date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

        of  registration by reference to the  Registrar  of          Trade Unions concerned;          (b)  whether any of the unions functioning  in  the          establishment  was responsible for  an  established          breach of the Code during the past one year. (By an          ‘established breach of the Code’ is meant a  breach          reported  to  and  on enquiry  established  by  the          Implementation  Machinery  of  the  State  or   the          Centre),          (c) whether the existing recognised union, if  any,          has completed a period of two years of recognition.          (2)   After  ascertaining  the  above  facts,   the          Implementation Machinery at the Centre will request          the   Chief   Labour   Commissioner   to    arrange          verification  of membership of unions  entitled  to          recognition  under the Code. In the States,  either          the  Implementation  Officer will  carry  out  this          verification  or  get  it done  through  the  State          Labour  Commissioner, depending on the practice  in          each State.          X      X     X    X    X    X    X    X     X     X          (10)  The  verification  officer  will  report  his          findings   to  the   Central/State   Implementation          machinery  which  in  turn  will  communicate   its          decision  to  the  management as  well  as  to  the          unions.   In  his report the  verification  officer          will also indicate the total numbers of workers  in          the   establishment  and  the  percentage  of   the          verified membership to it."      We may also mention in this context that Annexure I  to the Code lays down a criteria for recognition on unions.      7.  It  will  thus  be  apparent  from  the   aforesaid provisions  of the Code that the "Implementation  Machinery" envisaged by the Code consists of two separate Organisations viz., Implementation Units in                                                        407 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.    While   the   Central Implementation  and  Evaluation Division is set  up  in  the Ministry  of  Labour and Employment under the  charge  of  a Joint Secretary, the Implementation Units in the States  are set  up  under  the charge of a whole-time  officer  of  the Labour    Department.    It   is   recommended   that    the Implementation Officer should be a whole-time officer and of sufficient seniority as far as possible.  The Implementation Units have, among other things, been entrusted with the task of  ensuring  that  every management  sets  up  a  grievance procedure  in consultation with their workers  and  ensuring that recognition is granted to Unions by management wherever they  satisfy  the  prescribed criteria  by   following  the procedure laid down for the purpose in Apendix IV.  We  have already  pointed  out that the prescribed criteria  is  laid down in annexure I of the Code.  Further pre-conditions  for recognition  are  laid down in clause (1)  of  Appendix  IV. Thus  the  constitutions  of the  Implementation  Units  and Implementation Committees are different and they function in different areas.      8.  It appears that the High Court has  basically  been swayed by the fact that in clause (1) of the Appendix IV  it is  stated  that on the receipt of the  representation  from unions  for recognition, the  Central/State  "Implementation Machinery"  will  first ascertain the facts stated  in  sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

clauses  (a), (b) and (c) thereof and thereafter, if at  the Centre the "Implementation Machinery" will require the Chief Labour   Commissioner   to  arrange  the   verification   of membership  of unions entitled to recognition and if in  the States either the Implementation Officer will carry out  the verification   or  get  it done  through  the  State  Labour Commissioner  depending upon the practice obtaining in  each State.  The High Court also seems to have been influenced by the  provisions  of clause (10) of the said  Appendix  which requires the Verification Officer to report his findings  on membership  to the Centre/State "Implementation  Machinery". The  High  Court has obviously mistaken the  whole  for  the part.   As we have pointed out earlier, although Section  II of  the  Code  is  headed  "Implementation  Machinery"   the "Implementation   Machinery"   consists  of   two   separate Organisations,  viz.,  Implementation Units  and  Tripartite Implementation   Committees.   This  is  obvious  from   the language of Section II itself.  Their separate constitutions and functions also make this aspect clear.  What is further, to  hold  that  the Implementation Unit  in  the  respective Labour  Department together with the  respective  Tripartite Implemen-                                                        408 tation Committee at the Central, State or Local Level  would constitute the Implementation Machinery jointly and not each of  them  separately  would  run not  only  counter  to  the intention of the Code as is manifest from the clear language of Section II and their separate composition  and functions, but  would  also  be  impracticable  in  working.   We  have reproduced  above  the  composition  of  the  Implementation Committees  at  the  Centre  and  the  State  Level.   These Committees  consist  of,  at the  central  level,  an  equal number  of employers’ and workers’ representation-four  each from  the central Employers’ and Workers’  Organisations  as nominated  by  the Organisations themselves.  At  the  State level, they are required to be constituted similarly and  in consultation  with  the  Central  Employers’  and   Workers’ Organisations  wherever  they have affiliates in  the  State concerned.  The Committees are further presided over as  far as possible by respective Labour Ministers and even where it is  not possible for Labour Minister to preside  over  them, they  have to associate themselves as much as possible  with the deliberation of the Committees.  At the local level, the Committees  are similarly constituted of an equal number  of representatives  of the employers’ and Workers’ in  the area and are presided over by an Officer of the Labour Department or  by  a prominent person in the region.  In a  given  case there  may  be more associations than one of  employers  and employees,  and  the  Committees would thus  consist  of  an unwieldy  number.  To except such a Committee to  carry  out the  work mentioned in Appendix IV is unrealistic.  That  is why  the  Code itself has entrusted  to  the  Implementation Units  and not to the Implementation Committees the task  of ensuring   that   recognition  is  granted  to   unions   by management.  At the Centre, the Implementation Unit is  kept in charge of a Joint Secretary and at the State level it  is in  charge  of  a whole-time officer  of  the  State  Labour Department.      9. The record further shows that as early as on May 26, 1959,  i.e., after about a year of the ratification  of  the Code, the Government of India issued a statement naming  and designating    Officers   Incharge   of    Evaluation    and Implementation work in all the States and further stated  as follows:          ". . . .It is requested that all complaints of non-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

        implementation of Labour Laws, awards  settlements,          agreements,  Code of Discipline etc.,  relating  to          undertakings in  the  State sphere  may  kindly  be          referred,   in  future,  to  State   Implementation          Officers concerned . . . . ."      So   far  as  the State of  Orissa  is  concerned,  the Implementation                                                        409 Officer  named  by  the Government of India  is  the  Labour Commissioner   of  the  State.  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.  The High Court having committed the basic error of confusing    the   Implementation   unit   and    Tripartite Implementation  Committee together with  the  Implementation Machinery  was misled into holding that  the  Implementation Unit/Implementation Officer was not the proper authority  to initiate the procedure for recognition.      The High Court was further wrong in holding that clause (10)  of  Appendix IV which mentions that  the  Verification Office  will  report  his  findings  to  the  Implementation Machinery conveyed the meaning that the Implementation  Unit or  the  Labour  Commissioner was  not  the  "Implementation Machinery" but only a Verification Officer.  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  Implementation Officer  had an option either to carry out the  verification of  membership himself or 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.   The Deputy  Labour  Commissioner  in the  present  case  is  the Verification  Officer and under clause (10) of Appendix  IV, he  has 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.      10.  For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view  that the High Court has erred in allowing Writ Petition No.  4426 of  1989  filed  by the Ist respondent  and  dismissing  the appllant’s  Writ  Petition  being  No.  361  of  1990.   We, therefore,  set  aside the decision of the  High  Court  and direct  the  Deputy  Labour  Commissioner  to  complete  the process  of  verification  of  membership  and  the   Labour Commissioner  to complete the proceedings of recognition  as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four  months from the receipt of this decision.      In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. R.S.S.                                       Appeal allowed.                                                        410