http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.D. RANE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1559            1996 SCC  (3) 504  1996 SCALE  (2)800

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the  Division  Bench  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  made  on September 7,  1983 in W.P. No.3038 of 1983. The appellant is a rival  trade union  under M/s. Chemicals & Fibers of India Ltd. [formerly  ICI India Ltd.]. The Industrial Court in the order had  pointed out  that the  total employees as on June 15, 1981 were 811 and the respondent-union had a strength of 448 as  against the appellant-rival union having strength of 241. Thus  it  was  held  to  be  a  recognized  union.  The appellant  had  challenged  the  procedure  adopted  by  the investigating officer under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and  Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (1 of 1971) (for short, ’MRTUPULP Act’).      Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that  the Investigating  Officer was not justified in law in conducting spot verification and calling employees either by  alternate number  and verifying the same and that the procedure,  therefore, was clearly illegal. It is not in dispute that  the investigation  requires to  be done by the investigating  officer  in  accordance  with  the  procedure prescribed under  the Act. This Court in Automobile Products of India  Employees’ Union  vs. Association  of  Engineering Workers Bombay,  [(1990) 2 SCC 444] had held that the scheme relating to  the recognition  was to  be done  in accordance with the  Act. Even if the parties consented to identify the number of  employees in  the Company  by secret ballot, that method was not warranted by law and consent did not cure the illegality of  substitution of  a procedure  not  prescribed under the Act. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Association of Engineering Workers vs. Dockyard Labour Union &  Ors.,   [(1995)  Supp.  4  SCC  544].  Consequently,  the investigating office is required to conduct investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act.      In this  case, the  Industrial Court  had directed  the

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

investigating officer  by his  order dated November 17, 1980 to give  opportunity to  the parties and then to conduct the enquiry in  terms of  its previous  order dated  October  5, 1979. In  furtherance  thereof,  the  investigating  officer called upon the appellant as well as the respondent-Union to submit the  list of  members of the respective associations. He initially had verified the lists and thereafter made spot verification that  the basis.  He submitted a report stating that "as  per the  direction given  by the  Hon’ble  Member, Industrial Court,  the undersigned  conducted the enquiry on the spot  in the presence of the two representatives of each union and  members of  the non-application  employees." This report of the total number of respective unions was accepted by the  Industrial Court  and upheld  no doubt not by a very reasoned order, by the summary order. The Division Bench did not interfere  after perusal  of records,  since no error of law would be noticed. Hence this appeal.      Under Section  14 of the Act, the prohibition to make a fresh application  was imposed  for a  period of  two years; further making  of an  application within  one year from the date of order passed by the Industrial Court was prohibited. In other  words, after the expiry of two years, if any rival union  seeks   any  recognition,  the  Industrial  Court  is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the  act and  then to  take a  decision according to law. Since the  order was  passed by  the Industrial Court in the year 1983  and sufficient  time  has  already  elapsed,  the embargo under  Section 14 of the Act no longer is available. Therefore, if  the appellant  still seeks any recognition of the appellant-Union in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it  would  be  open  to  adopt  such  procedure  as  is available under law.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.