http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3409 1995

PETITIONER: BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD.  EMPLOYEES UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D.D.  BAMBODE AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/11/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     This   Appeal  is  against  a  Judgment   dated   29th September,  1994.  Briefly stated the facts are as  follows: The  Appellant  is a trade union registered under the  Trade Unions  Act,  1926 and a recognised union of  Borosil  Glass Works  Ltd.   The 4th Respondent and certain  other  persons made  a  joint application for membership of  the  Appellant Union.   As  the  application  was   not  according  to  the procedure  of the Appellant Union no action was taken on the said  application.   All those persons were asked  to  apply individually  by  filling  in the prescribed form  and  make payment  of requisite fee and membership subscription.   The Appellant  received a notice dated 15th April, 1993 from the Registrar  of Trade Unions under Section 10(b) of the  Trade Unions  Act  threatening to cancel the registration  of  the Appellant  Union.  The Appellant Union then learnt that this was  pursuant  to a complaint filed by 4th Respondent  under Section  28(1A) of the Trade Unions Act.  The Appellant then represented  their case before the Registrar.  The Registrar of  Trade Unions thereafter informed the 4th Respondent that since  he  was not a member of the Appellant Union  for  six months  prior to the date of the application no  certificate under  Section  28(1A)  of  the Trade Unions  Act  could  be granted to him.  The 4th Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the  Bombay High Court seeking direction to the Registrar of the  Trade  Unions  to issue a  consent  certificate.   That Petition  came to be disposed off by the impugned  Judgement dated 29th September, 1994.  The High Court has given a wide interpretation  to  Section 28(1A) of the Trade Unions  Act. It  has  been  held that even a person who  has  applied  to become  a member can apply under Section 28(1A) of the Trade Unions  Act.  This interpretation of Section 28(1A) has been assailed  before us in this Appeal.  For a consideration  of this  question  it  will be appropriate to set  out  Section 28(1A)  of  the  Trade  Unions Act.  It  reads  as  follows: "28(1A).   Power  of  Industrial  Court  to  decide  certain disputes.-  (1) Where there is a dispute as respects whether or  not  any  person  is an office-bearer  or  member  of  a registered  trade  union (including any dispute relating  to wrongful  expulsion of any such office-bearer or member)  or where  there  is  any  dispute   relating  to  the  property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(including the account books) of any registered trade union, any  member  of such registered trade union for a period  of not  less  than  six  months may, with the  consent  of  the Registrar,  and  in such manner as may be prescribed,  refer the  dispute  to the Industrial Court constituted under  the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1956 for decision.  (2) The Industrial  Court  shall  after hearing the parties  to  the dispute   decide   the   dispute;    and  may   require   an office-bearer or member of the registered trade union, to be appointed  whether  by  election  or  otherwise  under   the supervision  of  such  person as the  Industrial  Court  may appoint  in  this behalf or removed, in accordance with  the rules  of  the trade union:  Provided that,  the  Industrial Court  may  pending  the decision of the  dispute,  make  an interim  order  specifying  or   appointing  any  person  or appointing  a  Committee of Administration for  any  purpose under  the Act including the purpose of taking possession or control  of the property in dispute and managing it for  the purposes  of  the  uni  on pending the  decision.   (3)  The decision  of the Industrial Court shall be final and binding on  the parties, and shall not be called in question in  any civil court.  (4) No civil court shall entertain any suit or other proceedings in relation to the dispute referred to the Industrial  Court as aforesaid and if any suit or proceeding is  pending  in  any such Court, the Civil Court  shall,  on receipt  of an intimation from the Industrial Court that  it is seized of the question, cease to exercise jurisdiction in respect  thereof.   (5)  Save as aforesaid,  the  Industrial Tribunal  may,  in  deciding disputes  under  this  section, exercise  the same powers and follows the same procedure  as it  exercises  or  follows  for   the  purpose  of  deciding industrial  disputes  under the Bombay Industrial  Relations Act, 1946."

     The Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorporating Section  28(1A)  is  also relevant.  It  reads  as  follows:@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.

     The  Indian  Trade Unions Act, 1926, provides for  the registration  of  Trade  Unions,  and  in  certain  respects defines  the  law relating to registered Trade Unions.   The Act,  however,  does not contain any provision for  deciding internal  disputes  in  a  registered  Trade  Union.   These disputes,  which are at present decided by civil courts take a  long  time  to decide with the result, that  pending  the decision  of  the dispute, the work of the registered  Trade Union,  which  cannot function, is paralysed.  To tide  over this  difficulty, it is proposed to take power to members of Trade  Unions  with  the consent of the Registrar  of  Trade Unions  to  refer  such  disputes to  the  Industrial  Court constituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and   to  bar  the  jurisdiction   of  civil   courts   from entertaining  such disputes.  It is also proposed to empower the  Industrial  Court  to  pass  interim  orders,  and  its decisions are to be made final and binding on parties."

     In our view, on a plain reading of Section 28(1A), the interpretation  given by the High Court cannot be sustained. Section 28(1A) has been incorporated to ensure that internal disputes  in  a  trade  union   get  decided.   The  Section specifically  provides  that  it can be only  invoked  by  a person  who has been a member of such registered trade union for  a  period of not less than 6 months.  The words  "where

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

there  is a dispute as respects whether or not any person is an  office-bearer or member of a registered trade union" has to  be  read  along  with  the words  "any  member  of  such registered  union for a period not less than six months".  A person  whose  application  for   membership  has  not  been considered  or allowed would not have been a member for  six months.  It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that if two interpretations  are  possible,  one  of which  leads  to  a harmonious reading of the entire provision and another which renders  a  portion nugatory then the former  interpretation has  to  be accepted.  The interpretation given by the  High Court  leads  to the requirement of a person being a  member for  six  months being rendered nugatory.  However if it  is held that the dispute "as to whether a person is a member or not" is necessarily a dispute in respect of a person who was already  a member for a period of not less than six  months, but  whose  membership is being disputed then no portion  of the Section gets rendered nugatory.  Thus it will have to be held  that  dispute between persons who are not members  and the Union would not be covered by Section 28(1A).  Further a dispute between a person who is not yet a member and a union would  not  be  an  internal dispute of  the  union.   Under Section 28(1A) the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only  in  respect of matters which have been referred to  an Industrial  Court  under Section 28(1A).  If a dispute  does not  fall under Section 28(1A) then that dispute can  always be  taken  to a Civil Court.  As a dispute whether a  person should  or  should  not  be admitted as a member  is  not  a dispute  falling  within Section 28(1A), it would always  be open  to  such  persons  to   approach  a  Civil  Court  for resolution  of  their dispute.  Needless to say that if  the law permits they may also raise an industrial dispute before the  Industrial  Court  in  that   behalf.   In  our   view, therefore,  the  Judgment  of  the   High  Court  cannot  be sustained  and  is  set aside.  Accordingly  the  Appeal  is allowed.  There will be no order as to costs.