In an order of serious import to Labour Unions specially in the unorganised
sector Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the AP High Court upheld the power of
persons to form a Trade Union even if engaged through a contractor with a
principle employer.
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the VMC Employees Union
questioning the action of the Labour Department in cancelling the registration
of the Union on the ground that they were employees of a contractor and not of
the principal employer.
Dealing with the provisions of the Trade Union Act the judge pointed out to
Section 4 of the Act seven or more members may by subscribing their names may
apply for registration under the Act.
Dealing further with the provisions of the Act the judge pointed out that the
embargo for forming a Trade Union is that is shall not be registered unless the
application for such registration is made by “not less that 7 persons as its
members who are workmen engaged or employed in the establishment or industry
with which it is connected”. He also took note of the fact that the Union was
admittedly a registered Trade Union since September 2012. He pointed out that
under Section 10 (b) of the Trade Union Act a Trade Union can attract
cancellation of registration only if such registration was obtained “by fraud
or mistake or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and
after notice from the Registrar contravened any provisions of the Act or
allowed any Rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such
provision or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which
is required by Section 6 of the Act”. Spelling out yet another disqualification
he said that cancellation can also happen if the registered Trade Union ceases
to have requisite number of members. It was the admitted case of the government
that the order cancelling registration was not upon the prescribed statutory
conditions or even on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The
cancellation was on the purported ground that “registration was granted by
mistake”.
Delving on a characteristically surgical analysis of the language employed in
the statute Justice Ramesh Ranganathan reasoned that the State Union Act
stipulates that “the workmen entitled for being registered as a trade Union,
must be engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is
connected. The words ‘engaged’ and ‘employed’ find place in both the first and
the second provisos to Section 4 (1) of the Act. No statutory provision can be
so construed as to render any part thereof redundant or inapposite surplusage.
If registration is to be limited in an industry it would have sufficed to use
the word ‘employed’ and the usage of the word ‘engaged’ in addition thereto was
not necessary, he pointed out. Applying the theory that Legislations do not
suffer the vice of being verbose the judge would point out that persons need
not be employed in the establishment – the VMC industries in the instant case.
Testing the right to association from a constitutional lens Justice Ramesh
Ranganathan albeit in an interim order reasoned, “the right to form an
association is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(c) of the
Constitution of India. The manner in which such a Fundamental Right is to be
regulated is in the terms of the provisions of the Act”.
Interestingly the writ plea had yet another interesting facet to it which
awaits factual adjudication. It is alleged that the order of cancellation of
July 30 was antedated and passed by an officer who retired from service on July
31. What gave credence to the argument is that counsel G Vidyasagar pointed to
communications received under the Right to Information Act which pointed to
personal moving to the house of the retired Deputy Commissioner of Labour after
his retirement. On this aspect the judge said further investigation was required.
The judgement should not only go a long way in dealing with the right of
association provided for under the Trade Unions Act but could also be a warning
to those officials who sometimes exhibit a tendency to overstep and thereby be
overzealous and ‘pro establishment’ rather than ‘pro law’.