Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Tata Communications Limited, challenged an order dated 14 August 2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune, declaring five office bearers of Respondent No.3-Union (Tata Communication Employees Union) as 'protected workmen' under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The Petitioner had recognized only the Federation of Tata Communications Employees Union for negotiations and had already recognized five office bearers of the Federation as protected workmen. Respondent No.3-Union, a regional union affiliated to the Federation, sought recognition of its own office bearers as protected workmen, which the Petitioner rejected. The Union then filed a petition before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, which was initially closed, but a fresh petition was filed and allowed by the Regional Labour Commissioner. The Commissioner held that since the Petitioner did not respond within 15 days to the Union's application dated 25 April 2024, the application was deemed allowed. The Petitioner argued that only office bearers of a recognized union are entitled to protected workmen status, and that Rule 61(4) does not provide for deemed recognition. The court agreed, holding that the Commissioner erred in law by declaring office bearers of an unrecognized union as protected workmen and by treating the application as deemed allowed due to non-response. The court also noted that the Commissioner decided an application different from the one referred to him, constituting a jurisdictional error. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(4) - Protected Workmen - Recognition of Union - Only office bearers of a recognized trade union are entitled to be declared as protected workmen; office bearers of an unrecognized regional union cannot claim such status. The court held that the Regional Labour Commissioner erred in declaring five office bearers of Respondent No.3-Union (an unrecognized regional union) as protected workmen, as the Petitioner had recognized only the Federation for negotiations. (Paras 1-29)
B) Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - Rule 61(4) - Deemed Recognition - No Deemed Recognition on Expiry of 15 Days - Rule 61(4) does not provide for deemed recognition of protected workmen if the employer fails to respond within 15 days. The court held that the Regional Labour Commissioner's reliance on the employer's non-response within 15 days to treat the application as allowed was erroneous. (Paras 8-29)
C) Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - Rule 61(4) - Jurisdiction - Application Decided Must Be the One Referred - The Regional Labour Commissioner must decide the application referred to him; he cannot decide a different application. The court noted that the Commissioner decided an application dated 25 April 2024, whereas the reference was in respect of an application dated 13 December 2023, constituting a jurisdictional error. (Paras 8-29)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune, erred in declaring five office bearers of an unrecognized regional union as 'protected workmen' under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, and whether the Commissioner could treat the application as deemed allowed due to non-response by the employer within 15 days.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 14 August 2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune.
Law Points
- Protected workmen status under Section 33(4) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is available only to office bearers of recognized trade union
- not to office bearers of unrecognized regional unions
- Rule 61(4) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules
- 1957 does not provide for deemed recognition of protected workmen on expiry of 15-day period
- Regional Labour Commissioner cannot decide an application different from the one referred to him.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 1201
Writ Petition No.16553 of 2024
Kiran S. Bapat, Jeevan B. Panda, Jyoti Sinha, Dhriti Mehta, Yashasvi Kanodia for Petitioner; Shehnaz V. Bharucha for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; Jaiprakash Sawant for Respondent No.3
Tata Communications Limited
Union of India, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Pune, Tata Communication Employees Union
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging order of Regional Labour Commissioner declaring five office bearers of an unrecognized regional union as protected workmen under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 14 August 2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the order declaring office bearers of Respondent No.3-Union (an unrecognized regional union) as protected workmen, contending that only office bearers of the recognized Federation are entitled to such status.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Labour Commissioner had closed an earlier petition by Respondent No.3-Union on 5 October 2023, granting liberty to adopt appropriate legal proceedings. Thereafter, Respondent No.3-Union filed a fresh petition on 11 December 2023, which was allowed by the Regional Labour Commissioner on 14 August 2024.
Issues
Whether the Regional Labour Commissioner erred in declaring office bearers of an unrecognized regional union as protected workmen under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether Rule 61(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provides for deemed recognition of protected workmen on expiry of 15 days.
Whether the Regional Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide an application different from the one referred to him.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that only office bearers of a recognized union are entitled to protected workmen status; Respondent No.3-Union is not recognized; the Federation is the only recognized union.
Petitioner argued that Rule 61(4) does not provide for deemed recognition on expiry of 15 days; the Commissioner erred in treating the application as allowed due to non-response.
Petitioner argued that the Commissioner decided an application dated 25 April 2024, whereas the reference was in respect of an application dated 13 December 2023, constituting a jurisdictional error.
Respondent No.3-Union argued that the Commissioner correctly applied Rule 61(4) and that the Petitioner's non-response within 15 days justified the declaration.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61(4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, only office bearers of a recognized trade union are entitled to be declared as protected workmen. Rule 61(4) does not provide for deemed recognition of protected workmen on expiry of 15 days. The Regional Labour Commissioner must decide the application referred to him and cannot decide a different application.
Judgment Excerpts
The Regional Labour Commissioner has palpably erred in entertaining and deciding application dated 25 April 2024 made by Respondent No.3-Union when in fact the reference made to him was in respect of the application dated 13 December 2023.
There is nothing in law like deemed recognition on expiry of period of 15 days.
Only office bearers of the recognized union are entitled to be recognized as protected workmen under Section 33 of the ID Act read with Rule 61 of the ID (Central) Rules.
Procedural History
On 27 February 2020, Respondent No.3-Union sent names of five office bearers for recognition as protected workmen for financial year 2020-21. Petitioner rejected the request on 13 March 2020. Respondent No.3-Union filed a petition before Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, which was closed on 5 October 2023 with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. Respondent No.3-Union filed a fresh petition on 11 December 2023. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune allowed the petition by order dated 14 August 2024, declaring five office bearers as protected workmen. Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33, Section 33(4)
- Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957: Rule 61, Rule 61(4)
- Trade Unions Act, 1926:
