The petitioner Union alleging that they are representing a majority number of workers in the Company has filed the writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith take such appropriate steps as are necessary to ensure the implementation of the recommendations contained in the 348th Report of the International Labour Organisation's Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association in case No.2512 (India), in particular, forthwith ensure recognition of the petitioner Union by respondents 4 and 5.
2. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that even though they are having a large number of membership in their Union representing majority members, the Management has failed to recognise the petitioner Union and has also refused to accede to their request that the subscriptions towards the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association not be deducted from the wages of its members.
3. The petitioner Union further contended that even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Management had entered into a so-called settlement with the puppet Union, namely, MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association on 22.12.2004 and subsequently, even pursuant to the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government has failed to refer the industrial disputes raised by the petitioner Union and the validity of the settlement dated 22.12.2004 for adjudication and in spite of their various representations, as the Government did not take any steps to protect the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights of the members of the petitioner to prevent the commission of acts of anti-union discrimination by the Management, they had to take the matter and prefer the complaint to the International Labour Organisation's Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association (hereinafter referred to as CFA).
4. The petitioner Union also further contended that in the election conducted for the first time in May 2006, since certain workers, who were supported by the petitioner Union, won the election by a massive margin. But the Management started another puppet Union by name M.R.F. Arakonam Workers Welfare Union, the 6th respondent herein, and that after creating new Union, the Management began pressurising the workers in the factory to affix their signatures on letters under threat of victimisation to make it appear as if the workers are the members of the newly formed M.R.F. Arakonam Workers Welfare Union. They also specifically admitted that soon after the formation of the M.R.F. Arakonam Workers Welfare Union, the Management has granted it recognition claiming that it represented the majority of the workers. It was in stark contrast to the conduct of the Management in failing to recognise the petitioner Union till date and therefore, they were constrained to make a complaint before the CFA.
5. The petitioner would contend that the CFA gave its conclusion in Case No.2512 (India) and some of the relevant conclusions in the affidavit read as follows:
"901. The committee notes the complainant's allegations that the management of the enterprise refuses to accept its majority status and, therefore, recognise it as a collective bargaining agent, preferring to determine working conditions through 'settlements' concluded with a puppet union. It further notes the complainant's allegation that, except for the non-binding code of Discipline adopted in 1961, neither national nor Tamil Nadu legislation provides for the procedure of recognition of trade unions. Moreover, even the code does not provide for a possibility to ascertain the majority union in a situation where more than one union seeks representative status for collective bargaining purposes through a secret ballot.
904. ... The committee notes the Government's indication that following verification, the claim by the MRF United Workers' Union that it represents the majority of the workers in the Arakonam factory is confirmed and that the complainant trade union can address the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee for recognition, which then can recommend to the employer to recognise the union. In these circumstances, and taking into account the fact that the abovementioned committee can only issue conclusions of a recommendatory nature and the complainant's allegation that the enterprise management refuses to recognise it, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures to obtain the employer's recognition of that union for collective bargaining purposes. Such recognition of the majority union is all that much more important in light of the steps that had been taken by the enterprise to bypass the MRF United Workers' Union and enter into a 'settlement' with an admittedly minority union. The committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect."
6. The relevant recommendation of the CFA reads as follows:
"906 ........
(f) The Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures to obtain the employer's recognition of the MRF United Workers' Union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
7. In spite of the recommendations of the CFA, neither the Union of India nor the Government of Tamil Nadu showed any interest in implementing the recommendations, despite various representations of the petitioner Union.
8. They also specifically pleaded that till date the Government of Tamil Nadu has not taken any action pursuant to the CFA's recommendations to protect the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights of the workers in the factory of M.R.F. Limited at Ichiputhur, Arakonam.
9. It is also the case of the petitioner that the stand of the Government that since there is no specific law for the recognition of trade unions in the State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner Union would need to make an application before the State Implementation and Implementation Committee is contrary to the CFA's recommendations and they would further add that the Government claimed inability to comply with the recommendations on the ground that the field is not covered by domestic law. The petitioner further admitted that the Government can issue appropriate orders in the event of there being a legislative vacuum utilising their executive power under Articles 154 and 162 of the Constitution of India.
10. It is also the case of the petitioner that to prove the majority, there can be a secret ballot as it is an admitted case that the workers of the Company are belonging to both the Unions that is to say the large number of dual membership is prevalent in the Company. Therefore, questioning the action of the Government of Tamil Nadu in advising the petitioner Union to make an application in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the non-statutory code of Discipline is not proper. Even they filed a civil suit in C.S.No.322 of 2004 seeking that the petitioner Union is a majority Union of the workers in the factory of M.R.F. Limited, Arakonam, and also sought for an order of injunction and that the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association does not have any representative capacity. Though initially this Court had granted leave to the petitioner to institute the suit, subsequently the leave was revoked on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The said order was confirmed on appeal by the Division Bench of this Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. The suit was never tried.
11. Along with the main writ petition, the petitioner also filed an petition alleging that since the petitioner had already questioned the validity of the so-called settlement dated 22.12.2004 entered into by the Management with the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association, which is yet to be referred, they apprehended that the Management is again going into the settlement with the sixth respondent which may not be genuinely negotiated settlement pursuant to the collective bargaining. Hence, they prayed for an order of interim injunction only against respondents 4 and 5 from entering into any settlement relating to wage or any other issue with MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association, the sixth respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition.
12. On the above said pleadings, this Court admitted the writ petition and granted an order of injunction on 28.7.2008, for a period of two weeks, thereafter, it has been extended. The respondents 1 to 3 as against whom there is no order of injunction has filed a detailed counter and the sixth respondent has also filed a counter and a petition to vacate stay.
13. The first respondent in the writ petition has submitted in the counter that the petitioner Union had not chosen to apply before the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee for recognition, which has set out a procedure under code of discipline. The first respondent has taken a specific stand that though the Government is not legally bound by the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, since it is recommendatory in nature, it has taken congnizance of the contents of the recommendations and constituted a three member committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector, Vellore to probe into the allegations made by the petitioner Union vide G.O.(Rt) No.157, Labour and Employment (A2) Department dated 6.3.2008 and G.O.(Rt) No.211, Labour and Employment (A2) Department, dated 24.3.2008. The enquiry committed has submitted its report to the Government on 28.5.2008 which is of the opinion that there is dual membership with both the MRF United Workers Union and the MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union and that the workers were free to choose their union and show their affinity to any union.
14. The first respondent has further submitted in the counter that the Government of Tamilnadu has taken all possible steps to comply with the recommendations of Committee on Freedom of Association within the legal purview. The State Government has carefully examined every aspect and has taken the following actions:
(a) The Commissioner of labour heard both the parties to ascertain the status on the issues alleged in the Report of the committee on freedom of Association and advised the Management to dissuade from the anti-union discriminative actions.
(b) A three member committee headed by the District Collector, Vellore with two members in the cadre of Joint Commissioner of Labour and Joint Chief Inspector of Factories vide G.O.(Rt) No.157, Labour & Employment (A2) Department dated 6.3.2008 and G.O.(Rt) Noa.211, Labour & Employment (A2) Department, dated 24.3.2008 has been constituted by the Governments to enquire into the allegations. The committee has completed its enquiry and submitted its report to the Government on 28.5.2008.
(c) The Government has referred the charter of demands raised by the petitioner Union, to Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication, vide G.O.(D) No.89, Labour & Employment, dated 6.3.2008.
(d) The Government has referred the issue of transfers of members of the complainant union as an act of victimisation, including engagement of their members continuously in pre-compounding section of the Banbury area, for adjudication vide G.O.(D) No.135, Labour & Employment (A2) dated 15.4.2008.
15. The first respondent has also further stated that the State Government has taken all sincere steps within its legal ambit to comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association though not legally governed by its recommendations, since the relevant conventions on Right to Organise, 1948 (No.87) and Right to Organise and Collective bargaining, 1949 (No.98) were not yet ratified by India and the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association is recommdendatory in nature. In certain issues like malafide transfers, the State Government has taken suo motu action and referred the issue for adjudication without waiting for the complainant union to raise an industrial dispute as per Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
16. Thus, the first respondent has taken a specific stand that the recognition of the association cannot be a issue at all, as the Union has not taken the necessary steps contemplated under the procedure. The first respondent also clearly taken a stand that the report is only a recommendatory nature and the Government is not legally bound by the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
17. The sixth respondent Union has filed a petition to vacate the interim order of injunction and they have taken a specific stand that the writ petition is not maintainable though the writ petitioner has couched the main prayer against respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps to ensure the implementation of the recommendations, it is really interested in the interim prayer restraining the 6th respondent Union from arriving at any settlement relating to wage or any other issue with respondents 4 and 5. The main prayer and the interim prayer have no nexus at all. The writ petitioner cannot maintain such an interim prayer.
18. It also contended that out of 1416 working members, 1365 are members of the 6th respondent Union and hence, the Union is the majority Union which has been recognised by the Management of M.R.F. Ltd., as the sole collective bargaining agent. It has been specifically denied that the Management created the new Union, the 6th respondent herein, and pressurised the workers to affix their signatures on letters under threat of victimisation and further contended that almost 90% of the workmen became members of the 6th respondent Union, the Management was left with no option to grant recognition to their which commands majority.
19. The sixth respondent specifically pleaded that the sixth respondent Union is not a puppet union and the writ petition is not favourable or interested in amicable solution of issues but wants all issues to be settled only through agitation and adjudication and only in such circumstances, the majority workmen who are only interested in amicable settlement of their issues have chosen the 6th respondent Union and they continue to support the 6th respondent Union on their own without any kind of pressure by the Management. Hence, they prayed to vacate the interim stay, as it affects the rights entered into the settlement with the Management in respect of the wages or other emoluments.
20. The Management has taken a specific stand that they are at liberty to recognise the union according to them whoever represent the majority. Once a union has been recognised, there is no prescribed law to control the Management by any other union to recognise another union. Similarly, the Management can always enter into any kind of settlement under
Section 18(1) with respect to any individual or union as such settlement will not affect anybody other than the person or persons or the union who have signed the settlement. The petitioner cannot have any grievance at all for any settlement being arrived at by the Management. The writ petition itself is not maintainable.
21. The petitioner Union has filed a rejoinder stating that while the Government of India has not ratified either of the fundamental ILO Conventions relating to the freedom of association and collective bargaining, namely, Conventions Nos.87 or 98, by virtue of its very membership of the ILO, it is bound to respect the fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution of the ILO including the principles of freedom of association. They would also contend that the conclusion of the Committee that both the petitioner Union as well as the sixth respondent Union enjoy the substantial support of the workers and that the petitioner Union alone is not the majority union is incorrect.
22. They also further contend that while the Government claims to have taken all possible steps to implement the recommendations, the truth of the matter is that it has neither complied with the recommendations in letter nor in spirit. They would also contend that the contention of the first respondent that it cannot request the employer to recognise the petitioner Union as there is no law for the recognition of a trade Union in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the lack of a suitable legislation on the subject of recognition of trade unions cannot be a valid ground for either the State to ignore the specific recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association to secure the employer's recognition of the petitioner union or for the employer.
23. They would further submit that the code of discipline is non-statutory and is of a voluntary and recommendatory nature and does not prescribe any legal sanctions for failure to observe a recommendation made under the Code.
24. Based on the above said pleadings, the matter was taken up for consideration and a common order is passed in the petition for injunction filed by the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2008 and the vacate stay petition in M.P.No.1 of 2009 filed by the 6th respondent.
25. The main contention of the petitioner Union is that the petitioner Union commands a majority of membership and that though they represented large number of persons, the Union has not been recognised by the Management taking into consideration their strength.
26. It is also their case that the 6th respondent Union is only a puppet union created by the Management, only to suit their convenience and support the activities of the Management. They would also contend that even though the petitioner Union was formed much earlier on 29.12.2003, the newly formed the 6th respondent Union, namely, MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union, has been recognised by the Management only with the sole aim of satisfying their own interest. Aggrieved against the discrimination and also very many violations conducted by the Management, the petitioner Union seems to have given a complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association and a case has been registered in case No.2512 (India).
27. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Union elaborately pointed out that the various complaints given by petitioner Union before the said Committee. In fact, the complainant's allegations of so many alleged malpractice and violation, which are produced in the typed set of papers filed in the writ petition.
28. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the Management without recognising the petitioner Union has entered into the settlement with the puppet union. The Government of India filed a reply before the said Committee, which has been extracted in the Committee's order itself. Ultimately, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has specifically brought to the notice of this Court the relevant paragraphs Nos.901, 902 and 904 of the conclusion of the Committee.
29. It is the case of the petitioner Union that in spite of the recommendations made and findings given by the said Committee, the Government of Tamil Nadu has not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner Union and therefore, they sought for a writ of mandamus. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner Union further alleges that the Management is taking effective activities to enter into a settlement to suit their convenience with the puppet Union and if any settlement is arrived at, ultimately, it would only affect the members of the Association, who are all in majority.
30. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner union also specifically contended that if such settlement is arrived at between the parties, though it is not binding on them, the Management would take a leverage in respect of such settlement arrived at with the like-minded Union and force the other Unions to come to their terms. He would also referred to clause 1(c), and clause 2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
31. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Union is that granting of wage increase to the workmen at crucial periods of trade union organisation, with a view to undermining the efforts of the trade union organisation is detrimental to the interest of the workmen. He specifically pleaded that by encouraging to enter into a settlement with the puppet union at a crucial stage, when recommendations of the Union is still not done by the Government or the Management, the petitioner Union would be put into a disadvantages position. The workers also could be easily set targeted by such settlement and it may not be best to all the workmen. The Management alone will see to it with the said settlement and arrive only to their best advantage and not to the advantage of the workmen. He would further urge that an employer showing partiality and granting a favour to one of the several trade Unions or contributing support will again jeopardise the interest of the workmen especially the members of the petitioner Union.
32. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner union fairly submitted that there is no law either in the State Government or in the Central Government with regard to the recognition of the trade union or in regard to the implementation of the committee report, he would cite the Ruling of the Supreme Court in VISHAKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1997) 6 SCC 241) only to bring to the notice of this Court that any international conventions and norms, consistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and content to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee. He would also contend that the executive powers of the Union shall extend to the matters with respect to which parliament has power to make laws. The executive power of the Union is, therefore, available till Parliament enacts legislation to expressly provide measures needed to curb the evil. He would contend that law is not static. When there is no specific law provided for, still the international conventions, recommendations in respect of such non statutory matter can always be looked into and submitted that unless the interim order is extended and made absolute, any settlement arrived at by the 6th respondent with the Management would hamper the interest of the petitioner Union.
33. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 specifically pleaded that stand of the Government is very well established in the counter stating that they have already taken all possible steps to comply with the recommendations of Committee on Freedom of Association within the legal ambit and further would contend that the petitioner union ought to have approached the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee for recognition, which has set out the procedures under code of discipline, has not been adhered to by the petitioner union and they are not in a position to any way interfere in the process of recognition, as there is no law provided for either by the State Government or by the Central Government.
34. In fact, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 also pointed out that though the State Government is not legally bound by the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, as it is only a recommendatory in nature, it has already taken congnizance of the contents of the recommendations and constituted a three member committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector, Vellore to probe into the allegations made by the petitioner Union vide G.O.(Rt) No.157, Labour and Employment (A2) Department dated 6.3.2008 and G.O.(Rt) No.211, Labour and Employment (A2) Department, dated 24.3.2008. The enquiry committed has submitted its report to the Government on 28.5.2008 which is of the opinion that there is dual membership with both the MRF United Workers Union and the MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union and that the workers were free to choose their union and show their affinity to any union.
35. At this point of time, it is pertinent to mention that the learned senior counsel for the petitioner union also accepted that there are dual membership with both the MRF United Workers Union and the MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union and as far as the recognition is concerned, there is no legal obligation on the part of the Government.
36. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 specifically stated that the relevant conventions on Right to Organise, 1948 (No.87) and Right to Organise and Collective bargaining, 1949 (No.98) were not yet ratified by India and the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association is recommdendatory in nature and even in certain issues, like, malafide transfers, the State Government has taken suo motu action and referred the issue for adjudication without waiting for the complainant union to raise an industrial dispute as per Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has also brought out to the pendency of the various other cases in respect of the dismissal and other complaints made by the petitioner union and submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as there is no legal obligation to seek for a writ of mandamus to settle any settlement between the Management and the Union concerned.
37. The learned senior counsel for the sixth respondent in the writ petition specifically pleaded that the intention of the petitioner union is only to scuttle the process of any settlement being arrived at between the parties and he would specifically plead that the last settlement which was arrived in 2004 had expired with effect from 31.12.2008 and there is an immediate necessity for wage revision, under normal circumstances, they ought to have had the revision either before the completion of the settlement or immediately thereafter and pursuant to the interim order any wage revision which is due and payable to the employees of the association with the Company is being hampered. He would also further contend that under law there is no bar for any settlement being arrived at between the Management and the workmen. Even a single workman or collective number of workmen or any union representing either majority or the minority number of workers would be entitled to enter into any settlement under
Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
38. The learned senior counsel for the sixth respondent specifically pointed out the difference between the settlement arrived at under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the settlement in respect of
Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As far as any settlement being arrived at under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be only binding the parties to the agreement and it would not in any way affect the right of parties who are not signatory or the members of the particular union. Therefore, there need not be any apprehension by the members of the petitioner Union insofar as it relates to any settlement being arrived at between the 6th respondent Union and the Management. He also clearly pointed out that even if any settlement arrived at between the 6th respondent and the Management, it is always open to the members of the petitioner Union to raise an Industrial Dispute, if they do not accept the settlement as entered into between the parties. He would further plead that there cannot be any legal impediment prohibiting the Management or any employer to enter into any settlement under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whether the union is a majority union or minority union.
39. The learned senior counsel for the 6th respondent also brought to the notice of this Court the communication of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, to the President of the 6th respondent Union, dated 18.4.2008 that the Government has clearly pointed out with reference to the recommendation of the CFA, there is no specific law for recognition of a Trade union in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Trade Union Act, 1926 deals only with the registration of the trade union and not the recognition of Trade Union. the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, also pointed out that the code of Discipline evolved at the 16th session of the India Labour Conference held at Nainital in May 1958 and this process emanates from submitting a petition by a trade union or an employer before the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee. It was further pointed out that, in this context, the MRF United Workers' Union, the petitioner union herein, is advised to make an application before the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee. In spite of the letter dated 18.4.2008, the petitioner Union has not chosen to apply to the proper form to seek for their recognition. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now plead before this Court that the Management has not recognised the petitioner Union.
40. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent that by not doing so to seek for recognition, it is not open to the petitioner to stop any settlement being arrived at between the sixth respondent and the Management. The apprehension of the learned senior counsel for the sixth respondent union was that as more than 4 months had already elapsed from the last date of the earlier settlement, any wage revision, which is due and payable by the workers, is hampered. Because of the interim order, it would lead to insecurity among workers.
41. Above all these things, this is the right time for arriving at a settlement as the workers are eagerly waiting for their increase in the income or wage as they have to admit their children into the College or school immediately after vacation and this is the period in which they could get the necessary relief from the Management also. Therefore, any increase in the wage settlement arrived at between parties would also benefit to the petitioner union members, if they wanted it and if they do not accept it, it is always open for them to agitate the matter in the manner known to law. Therefore, there cannot be any legal embargo for entering into the settlement.
42. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent that the prayer of the writ petition cannot be granted especially when there is no law of the land to recognise and implement the recommendations of the Committee, how could the interim order which is no way connected with the main writ petition could be granted.
43. On the above said submissions of the learned counsels for the parties concerned, the short point for consideration in the interlocutory stage would be whether the interim order of injunction could be granted at this point of time when especially the main writ petition is for the relief of writ of mandamus seeking for the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps for the implementation of the recommendation of the CFA.
44. It is pertinent to point out here that insofar as the interlocutory petition is concerned, no relief is claimed as against the respondents 1 to 3 the Government. It is only for a prayer in which they would contend that no settlement can be arrived at between the Management and the sixth respondent. The petitioner has asked for a blanket order of injunction pending the writ petition to stop any settlement in any form to be arrived at between the workers Union de horse the fact that they represent the majority of the workers or minority workers with the Management.
45. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the sixth respondent and the 4th respondent that there cannot be an injunction restraining any workman or a body of workmen or union representing with the minority or majority of the workmen to enter into any form of settlement with the Management under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
46. A bare reading of
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would clearly indicate that whatever settlement arrived at between the parties namely, the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Therefore, there cannot be embargo even for a settlement of a single individual or group of individuals or even by a union representing a number of individuals with the Management.
47. As rightly pointed out that when there is no legislation in respect of the recognition of the union, the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that international conventions could be taken note of and still Court can interfere or Government can pass executive orders to alleviate their grievance is not well founded.
48. As pointed out by the respondent 1 to 3 in paragraph 29 of the counter, the Government has taken all possible steps to comply with the recommendations of Committee on Freedom of Association within the legal purview even though under the law they are not bound by the same. It is also as rightly pointed out that the Government of India has not ratified the fundamental ILO Conventions relating to the freedom of association and collective bargaining. As the recommendation of the committee which could be only a recommendatory in nature, which the Government has already taken note of and initiated certain proceedings and when the Government has already taken steps, the apprehension of the petitioner that the Government has to interfere or the Court to interfere at this point of time, especially in stopping the settlement between the Management with the particular union has no legal bearing at all.
49. The learned senior counsel for the sixth respondent has also stated that any settlement arrived at between the parties would not in any way hamper the rights of the petitioner Union and any safeguard can be given by the Court in the order.
50. Taking into consideration the admitted fact of all the parties concerned that there is a large number of dual membership in respect of the petitioner Union and the sixth respondent Union, the blanket injunction sought for cannot be granted. In view of the findings of the enquiry committee constituted by the Government has clearly given a finding that since most of the workers are members of the MRF United Workers Union and the MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union, it only reveals that they want to keep their eggs in both the baskets. This observation of the enquiry committee as pointed out in the counter of the respondents 1 to 3 has not been specifically repudiated by the petitioner union. Per contra, the petitioner fairly conceded that even the dual membership could be ascertained by the conduct of secret balloting.
51. The arguments of the 4th respondent and the 6th respondent in regard to the intention of the petitioner is only to some how or other harass the 4th respondent and the 6th respondent is clearly established as the prayer in the injunction petition has nothing to do with the main writ petition at all. Even in the main writ petition they have only added the Government authorities to seek the relief of mandamus. Even such a mandamus cannot be issued as admittedly there is no law compelling any management to recognise any union. In fact, knowing fully well that such a course is not open to them the petitioner earlier filed a civil suit before this Court seeking for a declaration that the petitioner union is the majority union of the workers in the Arakonam factory of MRF Limited and also seeking for an injunction that the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association does not have any representative capacity. Though initially this Court had granted leave to the petitioner to institute the suit, subsequently the leave was revoked on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The said order was confirmed on appeal by the Division Bench of this Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. The suit was never tried. The Union thereafter did not take any steps to file a civil suit before the Court having jurisdiction but has chosen to file this writ petition. The reference to the earlier suit has become more appropriate in view of the prayer sought for in the earlier suit. The prayer as stated in paragraph 26 of the affidavit of the petitioner is "declaration that the petitioner union is the majority union of the workers in the Arakonam factory of MRF Limited and that the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association does not have any representative capacity and consequent orders of injunction. The petitioner Union had stated in the plaint filed in the suit that it is prepared to face a secret ballot to demonstrate that it has the overwhelming support of the workers in the Arakonam factory". The same prayer is now argued and sought for in the court that the petitioner union is always ready and willing to have a secret ballot to prove their requirement and majority and thereafter recognition can be given by the Management. Having not pursued in their earlier attempt by way of a civil suit now taking advantage of a report of the CFA, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition as if it is a matter where the Government has to take action when there is no such law.
52. With regard to the recognition, even the Government has categorically stated before the CFA that the recognition of a trade union is neither a statutory right granted to trade unions nor a statutory obligation imposed on a enterprise management. In fact, in Tamil Nadu, there is no legislation relating to the recognition of trade unions as majority union or as collective bargaining agents. If the complainant union is aggrieved by the refusal of the management to recognise it, it can always address the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee, a tripartite body which assesses the membership of trade unions in a given industry or establishment through verification of records and recommends to the employer to recognise one of the unions.
53. The recognition of the petitioner by the respondents 4 and 5 and the interim order sought for is to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from entering into any settlement with the 6th respondent Union. Therefore, it is nothing but the petitioner has chosen this prayer in the petition to stall any settlement between the like-minded workers and the Management and ultimately the intention to seek for recognition of the Union only without following the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, the petitioner union intention is to seek for injunction is legally not sustainable.
54. Again in the interim prayer conveniently the petitioner has only sought for the injunction restraining the Management to enter into any settlement with the other union where Government action is not in any way concerned or required. Admittedly even in the main writ petition prayer though a feeble attempt is made to seek the Government to take such appropriate steps to ensure the implementation of the recommendation contained in the 348th report of the CFA, the actual prayer is in particular forthwith ensure recognition of the petitioner union by respondents 4 and 5.
55. Taking into consideration this aspect also, the interim order as sought for by the petitioner Union cannot be granted. The petitioner interest would be safeguarded by the specific direction of this Court that any settlement arrived at by the sixth respondent will not in any way hamper the right of the members of the petitioner Union.
56. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties concerned and in view of the reasons stated in the affiavits filed in support of the petitions and in the counter affidavit, this court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner union in seeking for a blanket order restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from entering into any settlement relating to wage or any other issue with the 6th respondent is legally not sustainable. But this Court can always safeguard the interest of the petitioner by specifically stating that any settlement arrived at by the sixth respondent with the respondents 4 and 5 will not in any way affect the rights of the members of the petitioner Union nor it would bind the Members of the petitioner Union. The court further directs that the Management will not in any way coerce or force or compel any of the members of the petitioner Union to accept the settlement arrived at between the 6th respondent and respondents 4 and 5.
57. In the result, the interim order granted by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2008 is vacated and the petition in M.P.No.1 of 2008 for vacating the interim stay is allowed. At the time of pronouncement of the order, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner prayed that the writ petition may be posted in the third week of June 2009. Hence, the Registry is directed to post the writ petition on 22.6.2009, for final hearing along with M.P.No.2 of 2008.
lan