Trade Union Cannot Invoke Recovery U/S 50 MRTU & PULP Act Without Written Authorisation From Employees: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a trade union cannot independently invoke Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP (Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971) Act for the recovery of money without written authorisation from employees. The Court observed that the statutory scheme restricts the right of recovery to the employee or a person expressly authorised by him in writing.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Vidyut Metallics Employees Union challenging the order of the Industrial Court rejecting its recovery application under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The dispute arose from a settlement dated 02.02.2006 governing service conditions, including payment of bonus and ex gratia, wherein a sum of Rs. 320 per employee was to be deducted and remitted to the Union. It was alleged that although the employer paid a bonus to employees, it failed to remit the deducted amount to the Union. Earlier, the Industrial Court had held the employer guilty of unfair labour practice and directed payment of the said amount to the Union. Upon non-compliance, the Union initiated recovery proceedings under Section 50, which were rejected, leading to the present petition.

The Court examined the scheme of Section 50 and held that it is a provision for the recovery of money due to an employee and not a source of substantive right. It noted that the provision permits an application by the employee himself or by a person authorised by him in writing, and in case of death, by his heirs or assignee. The Court emphasised that the statutory language does not include a union as an independent claimant.

Rejecting the contention that the term “employee” should be interpreted to include a union, the Court held that the language of the provision is clear and does not admit such expansion. It observed that accepting such an interpretation would render the requirement of written authorisation otiose and alter the scheme of the provision.

The Court noted that the Union had not produced any written authorisation from employees permitting it to initiate recovery proceedings on their behalf. It held that mere membership of employees in the union or existence of a settlement providing for deductions did not amount to authorisation for the purposes of Section 50.

“… the word “employee” in Section 50 cannot be read as including the Union in the present facts. The petitioner has not shown any written permission from the employees. Because of this, the Union cannot file recovery in its own name. It has no legal capacity under this section to do so,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the argument that the absence of a remedy would justify a broader interpretation, holding that hardship cannot be a ground to expand the scope of a statutory provision beyond its plain terms.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs. Vidyut Metallics Private Limited [Writ Petition No. 13788 of 2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

Click Here To Read/Download Order