LIST OF CASE LAWS:

1-Mazgaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai vs Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra And Anr (2001), 2002 (2)
MhLj 219
2-Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha vs Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi , (1994) IIILLJ
814
3-O.N.G.C. Mazdoor Sangh vs O.N.G.C. Ltd. And Ors., (2002) 2 GLR 1295
4-Sri Visakha Grameena Bank ... vs Government Of India And Anr., (1992) ILLJ 72
AP
5-Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. And Ors , 1985
AIR 311
6-The Registrar Of Trade Unions, ... vs The Government Press Employees', (1975) 2
MLJ 347
7-R. G. D'Souza vs Poona Employees Union
8-Jay Engineering Workers Vs. Its Staff (AIR 1968 Cal. 407)

1)C.P. Sarathy v. State of Madras1

Fact:- The South Indian Cinema Employees' Association, a registered trade union whose
members were the employees of the 24 cinema houses operating in the Madras City including
some of the employeesof the Prabhat Talkies, submitted to

the

Labour

Commissioner a memorandum setting forth certain demands against their employers for
increased wages etc. and requesting

him

to

settle

the

disputes. The

Labour

Commissioner suggested certain, " minimum terms " which were accepted by some of the
companies including Prabhat Talkies and at a meeting of the employees of the

Prabhat

Talkies a resolution was passed to the effect that no action be taken about the demands
of the Association. decided to go on strike. The

Labour Commade a

reference to an Industrial Tribunal, the material portion of which "'Whereas an industrial

dispute has arisen between the workers was: and

management of

Talkies in the Madras City in respect of certain matters and

of His Excellency the

whereas

the
in

Cinema
the opinion

Governor of Madras it is necessary, to refer the said industrial

dispute for adjudication: now therefore etc." The Prabhat 313

ISSUE:- Whether it is a trade dispute or not ?
JUDGMENT:- Held by
clearly showed
1 A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 191

the Full Court, (i)the Labour Commissioner's

report

that an Trade dispute existed between the management and the

employees of the cinema houses; (ii) that as some of the workers of

the

Talkies were members of the Union, and a reference could be made

dispute was apprehended,
in respect

Prabhat

even

when

the Government had jurisdiction to make a reference

of the Prabhat Talkies and the reference and

even

the award were binding

on the Prabhat Talkies.

2)Newspaper Ltd v ST Industrial Tribunal U.P2
FACTS
Respondent was employed as a lino typist by the appellant company but on allegations of
incompetence he was dismissed from service. His case was not taken up by any union of
workers of the appellant company nor by any of the unions of workmen employed in similar
or-allied trades, but the U.P. Working journalists Union, Lucknow, with which the respondent
had no connection took the matter to the Conciliation Board, Allahabad, and ultimately the
Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal by a notification in which one of the
points for determination referred was as to- whether the services of the respondent were
wrongfully terminated by the management. The legality of thereference challenged by the
appellant and the question was raised as to whether a dispute between an employer and
a single workman falls within the definition of "industrial dispute" under the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
ISSUE Whether an individual dispute could be a trade dispute ?
JUDGMENT:- An individual dispute could be a trade dispute only when it is sponsored by
Trade union or a substantial amount of workers. It is not necessary that it should be supported
by all or majority of workers but a substantial amount of workers of the establishment IT will
be regarded as a trade dispute.
3) Tiruvala tirupati devsthanam v Workmen 3
FACTS The employees of the Water Supply and Power Distribution Department of the
Devasthanam are about 200 in number. They formed themselves into a union and applied for
the union being registered under the Trade Unions Act. The Registrar having been satisfied
that all the formalities required under the Act have been complied with the registered union
2 AIR 1957 SC 532
3 (1979) ILLJ 448 AP

and issued a Registration Certificate, on the 10th July, 1970 the General Secretary of the
union wrote to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam that the Departments had formed
themselves into a union and the union registered under the Trade Unions Act on 23rd May,
1970. He requested that the union may be recognised at an early date. A reminder was again
sent on 11th March, 1971 and 21st June, 1971. The Devasthanam took up the stand that
registration was not justified as the employees working in the Devasthanam which is a
religious and charitable Institution cannot be treated as workmen within the meaning of the
Trade Unions Act. The workers were attached by the departments which were only ancillary
to the main institution and hence the registration of the union was not proper. They, therefore,
approached the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel the registration of the union. It is not
necessary to set out the protracted correspondence between the Devasthanam and the
Registrar of Trade Unions as also the Government in this regard. Finally an application was
made under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act for cancellation of the registration on the
ground that the certificate had been issued by mistake. This application was rejected by order
dated 2nd June, 1975, stating that it was not possible to cancel the registration on the plea of
mistake by the union under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. A similar application was
made with reference to the Employees Union and a similar order was passed in that case also.
ISSUE Whether a workers of the Religious institution can form a trade union or not ?
JUDGMENT:- They can form a Trade union only in the case of Religious institution if they
are doing a work of manufacturing and producing for the commercial purpose only and in
this case they are not conducting business for profit but for the welfare of the society so it
will not be called as a industry so the workmen cannot form a Trade union in the case of
religious institution
4)Rangaswamy v Registrar of Trade union4
FACTS:- This is a petition under S. 11 of the Trade Unions Act seeking to set aside the order
of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras refusing to register the union of employees of the
Madras Raj Bhavan as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act XVI of 1926,
ISSUE Whether a govt servant can form a Trade union ?
JUDGMENT:- That a large section of employees at Raj Bhavan are Government servants
who could not form themselves into a trade union, it cannot be stated that the workers are
4 AIR 1962 Mad 23

employed in a trade or business carried on by the employer. The services rendered by them
are purely of a personal nature. The union of such workers would not come within the scope
of the Act, so as to entitle it to registration thereunder.
5)The Kandan Textile Ltd. vs The Industrial Tribunal5
FACTS:The applicant company is the proprietor of a small weaving mill located in 'iruvottiyur, Madras,
employing (60 looms and about 200 workers. On 21st January, 1948, one R.M. Sundaram one of the
workmen in the mill was dismissed by the management on the ground that he was responsible for the
loss of a flexible shaft. He made attempts through the Labour Conciliation Officer to get himself reinstated but did not succeed in his attempt. On 23rd August, 1948, the boiler in the mills broke down
and the mills were closed from 24th August, 1948, till nth October, 1948. On the intervention of the
Labour Authorities, 14 days wages were paid to practically all the workers. On 12th October, 1948, the
mill reopened. Most of the workmen who had been working in the mill on the date of the closure were
taken in, but 48 of them were left out. The mills were not working at their full strength of three shifts.
On 28th October, 1948, the management put up a notice of having a third shift on and from 3rd
November, 1948. On 13th November, 1948, 21 of the workers who had been left out resumed duty.
They were asked by the manager of the mills to work on looms other than those which had been
allotted to them prior to the closure of the mills, but they declined to do so, and thereupon the
manager asked them to leave the mills. A notice was put up at the mills informing the workers that
their services were dispensed with as they had refused to accept the allocation of looms made by the
manager. On 20th November, 1948, seven more workers of whom one was a jobber and the rest were
weavers were called back to duty and new looms were allotted to the six weavers. They too declined to
work on the new looms and were dismissed. Six of the weavers who had been in service of the mills
before the boiler broke down were not called back at all. Two of the workmen who had been jobbers
before the closure were entertained again not as jobbers but only as weavers.

ISSUE:- Capacity of this union to represent the general body of workers or any section of the
workmen was questioned by the applicant

JUDGMENT:- The greatest caution should be exercised by Government before referring any point
for determination to a Tribunal, in arriving at a decision, whether it is in law an industrial dispute or
not. Nothing can be more calculated to undermine the morale and discipline of labour than illegal and
unnecessary references of this kind which put a premium on mischievous insubordination anddiscourage and undermine the loyalty of the great majority of workmen who in this concern obviously
are quite contented, and " have no interest " in the re-instatement of the other workmen including the
dismissed workers.

5 AIR 1951 Mad 616

1-Mazgaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai vs Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra And Anr

(2001), 2002 (2) MhLj 219
Fact- The petitioner is a Central Government Company and its shares
are held by the President of India. It is engaged in the business of
construction of warships, submarines and ship repairs. It employs about
10,000 employees.The respondent workman has filed a Complaint of
Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV under Sections 28
and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the State Enactment, The
Complaint is still pending before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at
Mumbai. We are not concerned with the facts and the merits of the
complaint, and therefore, I am not referring to the factual aspect of the
Complaint.
Issue: Central Government being the appropriate government for the industrial
disputes between its workmen and the company the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act does not apply to the
petitioner company and therefore the present complaint filed by the respondent
workman was not maintainable as the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain and try the said complaint
Judgement-any industry as defined in Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and the State Government in relation to any industrial
dispute concerning such industry is the appropriate Government under that Act,
" What it means is that if the State Government is the appropriate Government
for an industrial dispute in the industry the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act would apply to such
industry. In our case originally the State Government was the appropriate
Government for the petitioner industry and subsequently the Central
Government has become the appropriate Government and thereafter the Central
Government has issued a notification under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes
Act appointing the State Government also as the appropriate Government for the
petitioner Industry. Whether by delegation or by any other mode if the State
Government is the appropriate Government for the industry of the petitioner
Company in that case the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act would apply.
2-Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha vs Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi ,
(1994) IIILLJ 814 Bom

Fact-The Petitioner union, Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha, is a registered

trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is also a recognised trade union
under the Act, functioning as such in an Undertaking. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
made an application in the Court of Respondent under Section 13 of the Act for
cancellation of recognition of the Petitioner union on the grounds that from Jan.
1982, out of 950 employees 849 resigned their membership from that union and
joined the Genera! Labour Union (Red Flag), and, therefore, the Petitioner union
did not have the membership as required under Section 11 of the Act and that it
was recognised under mistake, misrepresentation or fraud and it had failed to
observe the conditions specified in Section 19 of the Act and further that it was
not being conducted bona fide in the interest of the employees.
Issues- whether individual employee or employees can initiate proceeding for
cancellation of recognition of a union under Section 13 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Judgement- The Industrial Court shall not recognise any union, if it is satisfied
that the application 10 for the recognition was not made bona fide in the interest
of the employees, but it was made in the interest of the employer or to the
prejudice of the interest of the employees.

3-O.N.G.C. Mazdoor Sangh vs O.N.G.C. Ltd. And Ors., (2002) 2 GLR 1295
Fact-The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the Trade
Unions Act. the members of the petitioner-Union are spread over the entire
region, i.e. Ankleshwar, Vadodara, Khambhat, Ahmedabad and Mehsana and that
the strength of the workers in Ahmedabad is 1500 and out of that, 1000 workers
are the members of the petitioner-Union.
Issue- the petition that even though the petitioner-Union has requested the
O.N.G.C. to give recognition to it, the same was not given and the office bearers
of the petitioner-Union are not called for any negotiations while taking policy
decision nor have they given any such facilities, which are given to the officebearers of the recognised Unions even though the petitioner-Union is having
larger membership
Judgement- the O.N.G.C. should carry out verification in order to find out the
strength of a particular Union. O.N.G.C. may thereafter, follow the procedure for
giving recognition and before giving such recognition, if there is an interim
injunction of any Court, the same should be taken care of,
4-Sri Visakha Grameena Bank ... vs Government Of India And Anr.,
(1992) ILLJ 72 AP
Fact- The petitioner-association is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 .
The said association is a composite association, o represent more than 90 per
cent of the employees of the bank.
Issue- the Government of India (first respondent) has issued the impugned letter
dt. November 25, 1988, directing all Regional Rural Banks not to give recognition
to associations having "composite membership" of Officers and Workers.

Judgement- it may be noted that the Trade Unions Act deals merely with the
registration of trade unions and the conditions for registration and it has nothing
to do with recognition of Trade Unions. The matter of recognition is governed by
the 'Code of Discipline' so recognition cant be granted.
5-Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, ... vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. And
Ors , 1985 AIR 311
Fact-Two unions of workmen employed in the first respondent Company M/S
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd ('employer' for short) are at logger-heads and their interse rivalry. Recognised trade union asked for settlement with industry which is
objected by non recognized trade union because it is against public policy.
Issue- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act 1971 conferring exclusive right on recognised union to represent
workmen in disputes-Whether ultra vires the Constitution.
Judgement-In fact, even amongst trade union leaders there was near unanimity
that the concept of recognised union as the sole bargaining agent must be
developed in the larger interest of industrial peace and harmony. The settlement
having been made by the representative union, its right to represent all
workmen would imply the consent of the members of the rival union. This is
the legal consequence of the right of the representative union to represent
all workmen and the binding effect of its action

6-The Registrar Of Trade Unions, ... vs The Government Press

Employees', (1975) 2 MLJ 347
Fact-The Employees of the Pondicherry Government Press constituted themselves
into the Government Press Employees' Union and under Section 5 of the Trade
Unions Act, applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Pondicherry, for registration
of the trade union. The ground given by the Registrar for refusing to register the
application was, "the present functions of the Government Press, Pondicherry, do
not come within the meaning of trade or business"
Issue-The question arises whether the workmen represented by the Government
Press Employees' Union, Pondicherry, are persons employed in "trade'' or
"industry"
Judgement- the workmen employed in an industrial undertaking, like the
Government Press, Pondicherry, are "workmen" entitled to the benefits of the
Trade of 1926.
7-R. G. D'Souza vs Poona Employees Union
Fact-Petitioner was the Unit President of the Respondent No. 1 Trade Union when
the application for the Registration Certificate of Respondent No. 1 Union was
made. However, the Petitioner, due to internal clashes, was expelled from the
Respondent No. 1 Union. There were some disputes between the Respondent No.
1 and one other Union namely Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (BKS) pending before the

Industrial Court. The Petitioner being the active member in the labour movement
and interested party, filed an application under Section 10 of the Trade Unions
Act
Issue-Whether the Registration Certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake
by the Trade Union and so liabled to be cancelled ?
Judgement-S.10 Cancellation of registration - A certificate of registration of a
Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar. if the Registrar is
satisfied that the certificate has been 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 provision of this 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
8-Jay Engineering Workers Vs. Its Staff (AIR 1968 Cal. 407)
Fact- This application and a number of other applications relate to a group of
cases commonly described as "gherao" cases. retrenched workers, together with
other employees numbering about 100 to 150 persons gheraoed the manager
and other officials at the said office and kept them under wrongful confinement.
The beseigers, trespassed into the office, tampered with property and shouted
insulting and humiliating slogans against the confined persons.
Issue- whether they are entitled to get immunity or not?
Judgement-CJ Sinha of Calcutta High Court in clear terms summed up the
cumulative effects and scope of Sec. 17 & 18 of T.U act.
There is no exemption against either an agreement to commit an offence
or intimidation, molestation or violence, where they amount to an offence.
Where a T.U resorts to unlawful confinement of persons, criminal trespass or
where it becomes violent and indulges in criminal force or criminal assault or
mischief to person or property or molestation or intimidation, the exemption can
no longer be claimed

9-