Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
labour law project which is useful
Typology: Assignments
1 / 19
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
th
Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is the Act that regulates the labour laws as it concerns all the workmen or all the people employed on the Indian mainland. It came into force on 1 April
The capitalists or the employer and the workers always had a difference of opinion and thus, it leads to lots of conflicts among and within both of these groups. So, these issues brought to the attention of the government and so they decided to pass this act. This act was formed with the main objective of bringing peace and harmony in industrial disputes between parties and solving their issues in a peaceful manner.
An Act to provide for the registration of Trade Unions and in certain respects of define the law relating to registered Trade Unions. Whereas it is expending to provide for the registration of Trade Unions and in certain respect to define the law relating to registered Trade Unions Short title, extent and commencement – (1) This Act may be called the Trade Unions Act. 1926. (2) It extends to the whole of India. (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, appoint. The trade union has been defined by different authors as follows: (1) Webb: Trade union may be defined as “a continuous association of wage earners for the purposes of maintaining or improving the conditions of their working lives.” (2) Lester: “A trade union is an association of employees designed primarily to maintain or improve the condition of employment of its members.” (3) Indian Trade Union Act 1926: “Any combination whether temporary or permanent formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between the workmen and employers”.
(1) Collective bargaining with the management for securing better work environment for the workers/ employees. (2) Providing security to the workers and keeping check over the hiring and firing of workers. (3) Helping the management in redressal of grievances of workers at appropriate level. (4) If any dispute/matter remains unsettled referring the matter for arbitration. (5) To negotiate with management certain matters like hours of work, fringe benefits, wages and medical facilities and other welfare schemes. (6) To develop cooperation with employers. (7) To arouse public opinion in favour of labour/workers.
In pursuit of the primary objective, the Act contains 33 section’s. The provisions can broadly divided into eight section namely.
(1) Collective bargaining with the management for securing better work environment for the workers/ employees. (2) Providing security to the workers and keeping check over the hiring and firing of workers. (3) Helping the management in redressal of grievances of workers at appropriate level. (4) If any dispute/matter remains unsettled referring the matter for arbitration. (5) To negotiate with management certain matters like hours of work, fringe benefits, wages and medical facilities and other welfare schemes. (6) To develop cooperation with employers. (7) To arouse public opinion in favour of labour/workers.
Workers join trade union because of a number of reasons as given below:
furnished by the applicant Trade Union. The court observed that an official act done in official capacity is presumed to be legal and valid and the said act cannot again be nullified by the second decision of the Registrar, who has no power of review under the Act. Thus, only the act of obtaining the Registration Certificate by fraud or mistake, that too, by the person applying for registration, could only be a reason or ground for cancellation of registration of the Trade Union under Section 10 of the Act. The court further took into account that in the year 1986, when the Respondent Trade Union was registered, it was not necessary to specify or disclose the nature of industry in which it intended to operate. This requirement became a part of the statute for the first time when Section 4 was amended and two provisos were incorporated in the section. The court also held that Form ‘A’ which is prescribed for making application is a product of subordinate legislation. It cannot override the provisions of the Act as such any discrepancy while giving details in the prescribed form cannot invalidate the registration of the Trade Union and hence the Union cannot be said to have suppressed any information nor to have furnished wrong or misleading information for obtaining registration and as such its registration could not have been cancelled by the Registrar of the Trade Unions.
2 FACTS:- This writ petition was preferred by petitioner, Tata Workers’ union and others against an order dated 4th February, 2005 issued by the Registrar, Trade Union-cum- Commissioner on a complaint of one S.N. Singh. By impugned order, the Registrar while holding that the election of other bearers was not in accordance with law, refused to register the newly elected members of the Executive Committee. Direction was also given to take steps for fresh election of the members of Executive Committee and to make interim arrangement. After the aforesaid order, the Registrar, Trade Union issued another order dated 6th May, 2005 under Section 10 (b) of Trade Union Act, 1926 and the registration of the Trade Union, in question, was cancelled. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9th August, 2005 while did not choose to decide the issues on merit, gave liberty to the Trade Union to prefer appeal before the competent Court/ Tribunal. In the present case, certain interim order was passed against which the respondent moved before the Supreme Court by preferring a SLP. In the meantime, the registration of the Trade Union having been cancelled, the Supreme Court held that the said Special Leave Petition has become infructuous and hence it was dismissed. ISSUE:- Whether the Registrar of Trade Union has Jurisdiction to give any direction in respect of a de-recognized Trade Union? HELD:- The court rejected the submission of the Petitioner and held that this cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the registration of the Trade Union has been cancelled. The court further held that once the registration of the Trade Union has been cancelled and it has been de-recognized, the Registrar of Trade Union has no jurisdiction to give any direction in respect to such de-recognized Trade Union. After the de-recognizing of Trade Union, the Order dated 4th February, 2005 cannot be acted upon either for the purpose of election or for the purpose of interim arrangement. The court held that since the said Order dated 4th February, 2005 has lost its force; this writ petition has become infructuous and thus vacated the interim order passed on 23rd February, 2005. (^2) 2002 (95) FLR 39, (2002) IIILLJ 474 Jhar
another notice has to be issued proposing to impose the punishment of cancellation of registration against the Trade Union. The court observed that it was evident from the records of the case that the respondent has not stated anything about the receipt of the notice dated 7-3-1992 by the petitioner. It was further evident from the records that the respondent had not given any second show-cause notice to the petitioner before initiating the action of cancellation of the registration. The court held that when the rights of a citizen or a Union are affected by the proposed imposition of any punishment, he or it must be heard in person or through an advocate. In this case, the respondent had not given any opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case before passing the impugned order. The court came to the conclusion that the respondents had not given a second show-cause notice while cancelling the registration of the petitioner-trade union for not submitting the annual returns for the year 1990 and the respondents had not given any opportunity to represent the case of the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. Hence the court held that the impugned order cancelling the registration of the petitioner-trade union is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and offending the principles of natural justice and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Thus, this was the Industrial Disputes Act which was passed by the government of India in
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/ https://papers.ssrn.com/ https://blog.ipleaders.in/ https://www.lawteacher.net/ https://indiankanoon.org/ http://www.legalservicesindia.com/
