Indian Trade Union Act | Appeal U/S 11 Not Maintainable Unless Registration Of Trade Union Refused Or Withdrawn: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur recently set aside an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal by which it rejected an application filed by Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of an appeal filed by the M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, on the ground that the respondent Company cannot be allowed to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter of the registration certificate.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,

“…a person may have a right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, but he/she cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject-matter for the same relief. If parallel proceedings are allowed, they may give rise to forum shopping/hunting, wherein, a party who filed an application under Section 10 of the Act of 1926 before the Registrar, Trade Union and was not able to get the interim relief abandons the remedy before him and persues the remedy of filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the same cause, it will amount to abuse of the process of law.”

It is the case of the petitioner Union that it was declared as registered Union by the Additional Registrar, Trade Union by issuing certificate on August 29, 2018.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said certificate dated August 29, 2018 the respondent Company submitted an application under Section 10 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 (Act of 1926) which is still pending for adjudication before the Additional Registrar.

A notice was issued by the Additional Registrar to the petitioner and the same was assailed by the petitioner before the High Court by way of a Writ petition in which an interim order was passed on October 03, 2018 by which the respondents were restrained to take any proceedings pursuant to show cause notice dated September 12, 2018.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that concealing the above fact the respondent Company submitted an appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 before the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the same registration certificate dated August 29, 2018.

The petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the said appeal as the same was barred by law. The Tribunal rejected the said application vide impugned order dated April 03, 2019 indicating therein that a mix question of fact and law is involved.

The Counsel appearing for the respondent Company submitted that the appeal was moved by the respondent Company not only under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 but the same was also submitted with the aid of Section 9 (I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act of 1947).

It was further submitted that the appeal under Section 9 (I) of the Act of 1947 is maintainable against any order passed by the Registrar, hence the respondents have not caused any illegality in filing appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated August 29, 2018 by which the petitioner Union was declared as registered Trade Union under Section 9 of the Act of 1926.

The following questions were before the High Court:

1. Whether the respondent Company can avail two parallel remedies against the same registration certificate dated August 29, 2018 before two different forum of law?
2. Whether the appeal is barred by law as the same is not maintainable against the order of issuance of Certificate of Registration?

The Court noted:

“Appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 is maintainable against the order of refusal of the registration to register Trade Union or against the order of withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration. Here in this order neither the Registrar refused registration of the petitioner Trade Union nor the Registration Certificate is cancelled or withdrawn. Hence, appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 is not maintainable.”

The Court further observed that registration had been issued to the petitioner Union under Chapter II B of the Act of 1947 but the petitioner Union has been registered under Section 9 of the Act of 1926. Hence, the appeal under Section 9 (I) of the Act of 1947 is not maintainable.

The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 2007 (6) SCC 120; Jai Singh v. Union of India (1977) 1 SCC 1 and Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Volkart Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 642.

“In the light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that the respondent Company cannot be allowed to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter of the registration certificate dated 29.08.2018 i.e. one by way of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 and other by way of application under Section 10 of the Act of 1926 before the Registrar, Trade Union,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order dated April 03, 2019 passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 as “not maintainable”.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

Case Title: Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union v. M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited and Anr.

Case no.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8994/2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order