A PROJECT REPORT ON - PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO THE

INDIVIDUAL UNDER TRADE UNION ACT

SCHOOL OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

UNDER SUPERVISION OF: - SUBMITTED BY:-

Mr. AJAY BARANWAL ARPIT DHAKA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 151301016
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Arpit Dhaka student of B.A. LL.B (Hons.) second semester school of
Law Manipal University Jaipur has completed the project work entitled PROTECTION
AVAILABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER TRADE UNION ACT under my supervision
and guidance.
It is further certify that the candidate has made sincere efforts for the completion of the project
work.

SUPERVISOR NAME
Mr. AJAY BARANWAL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

I express deep sense of gratitude and indebtness to our teacher AJAY BARANWAL
Under whose guidance valuable suggestions, constant encouragement and kind supervision the
present project was carried out. I am also grateful to college faculty of law for their feedback and
for keeping us on schedule.
I also wish to express my sincere thanks to my friends who held directly or indirectly by giving
their valuable suggestions.

ARPIT DHAKA
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................5

OBJECTIVES OF TRADE UNION ACT...................................................................................................6

IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND CIVIL SUITS......................................................6

CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................12

WEBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................13

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................14
INTRODUCTION

The protection available to the individual under trade union Act is Given under Section 2(h) of
the Trade Union Act and it says - Trade Union means any combination, whether temporary or
permanent, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and
employers or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers for
imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business and includes any
federation of two or more Trade Unions.

Provided that this Act shall not affect -

(i) any agreement between partners as to their own business;
(ii) any agreement between an employer and those employed by him as to such
employment; or
(iii) any agreement in consideration of the sale of the goodwill of a business or of
instruction in any profession trade or handicraft.

The law relating to the registration and protection of the Trade Unions is contained in the Trade
Unions Act, 1926 which came into force with effect from 1st June 1927. The Act extends to the
whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

In common parlance, Trade Union means an association of workers in one or more occupations.
Its object is the protection and promotion of the interests of the working class. Trade Unions
have a home grown philosophy based on workers' experience and psychology. It grows out of the
workers' day-to-day experience.
 OBJECTIVES OF TRADE UNION ACT

Trade union is a voluntary organization of workers relating to a specific trade, industry or a

company and formed to help and protect their interests and welfare by collective action. Trade
union are the most suitable organisations for balancing and improving the relations between the
employees and the employer. They are formed not only to cater to the workers' demand, but also
for imparting discipline and inculcating in them the sense of responsibility.
They aim to:-
Secure fair wages for workers and improve their opportunities for promotion and
training.
Safeguard security of tenure and improve their conditions of service.
Improve working and living conditions of workers.
Provide them educational, cultural and recreational facilities.
Facilitate technological advancement by broadening the understanding of the workers.
Help them in improving levels of production, productivity, discipline and high standard
of living.
Promote individual and collective welfare and thus correlate the workers' interests with
that of their industry.
to take participation in management for decision-making in connection to workers and to
take disciplinary action against the worker who commits in-disciplinary action.

IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND CIVIL SUITS

The first legal hitch that thwarted the growth of Trade Union Movement was the charge of
criminal conspiracy against the very formation of Trade Union and their action considered in
restraint of Trade. In case of any protest in the form of strike or otherwise resulted in stoppage of
work, the T.U. was held responsible to pay the damages for the loss of production The first relief
against this situation was granted by U.K. Trade Union Act, 1871 in England as a result of the
recommendations of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions In India, too, the Buckingham and
Carnatica Mills vs. B.P. Wadia 1920, case served as an eye opener and the Trade Union leaders
focused their attention on the demand of legislative protection to their combination and actions
against the onslaught of the allegations of criminal conspiracy and civil liability to pay
compensation for loss of production caused due to strike or any concerted action.
In fact the main objective of passing the Trade Unions to grant immunity against criminal
conspiracy and civil suits and also to protect the registered Trade Unions against any vicarious
tortious liability in respect of the act committed by its agents, subject however, to certain
specified conditions. Thus these legislative bodies are given through sections and 19 of the T.U.
Act section 17-Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes No '[office or member of a Registered
Trade Union shall liable to punishment under sub-section(2) of Section 120B of the Indian Pen
Code (45 of 1860), in respect of any agreement made between the members for the purpose of
furthering any such object of the Trade Union as is specified in Section 15. unless the agreement
is an agreement commit an offence. to Commentary Section 17 provides much needed protection
to the registered T.U. against the punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. However
this protection is not unconditional, and is in fact subject to certain important conditions and
limited to certain extent. In first instance, any officer or member of a registered Trade Union is
not liable to punishment under sub-section (2) of Section 120 B of the LP C. and it is confined
only to sub-section(2) and not to the other punishment contained in Section 120-B of IPC. Under
Section 120-A of the IPC "Criminal conspiracy' is defined as an agreement to commit an offence
forbidden by law and the corresponding punishment for the violation of Section 120-A is
prescribed under 120-B of IPC. Section 120 B consists of two sub-sections Sub-section (1)
prescribes a more serious punishment for indulging in criminal conspiracy relating to more
serious offences for which the punishment prescribed by IPC is imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 2 years or more. If any criminal conspiracy is hatched to commit such offence for
which IPC prescribes a punishment of imprisonment exceeding two years, persons g criminal
conspiracy would be punished same prescribed by the provisions of the IPC as if the offence is
committed. However criminal conspiracy relating to an offence for which IPC prescribed
punishment of imprisonment for a term less than two years, is treated differently and under sub-
section(2) of Section 120-B lesser punishment of imprisonment extending only to six months is
prescri Thus it should be noted that the T.U. is protected only against sub section (2) of Section
120-B and not against sub-section(l) Second important restriction is that it relates to such
agreements made between the members of a registered T.U for the purpose of furthering any
Trade Unions Act, 1926 Ch 3] h objects of the TU 15 of the It means that agreement between the
embers of a T.U. only be for the ase carrying out its legitimate and lawful activities as are
detailed in Section 15 and not for any other purpose Lastly it is more clearly laid down at such
immunity is not available if the agreement is an agreement to commit an offence the The legal
propositions relating to Criminal conspiracy are well defined in leading English case. Sarrel s.
Smith'. The two legal propositions summarized as under: (a) A combination of two or more
persons willfully to do an act causing damage to a man in his trade or other interest is unlawful
and i damage in fact is caused, is actionable. (b) A combination of two or more persons the
primary object of which is not to cause any damage to any person, but to further their own cause
to protect their rights, such combination is not unlawful hence not actionable Therefore the real
purpose of combination is the crucial test between innocence and injury. Lord Summer opined,
thus "How any definite line is to be drawn between acts, whose real purpose is to advance the
defendants' interest, and acts, whose real purpose is to insure the plaintiff in his trade, is a thing
which I feel at present beyond my power" However, the above observation of Lord Summer does
not reflect the inability to differentiate between the activities of the T.U., but it emphasizes the
need to examine the action in each case with reference to the real object of the actions having
regard to other circumstances of each case and, therefore, no strict criteria can be prescribed
which could be uniformly applied in every case To sum up, it is sufficient to realize that the
protection against criminal conspiracy under Section 17 of the T.U. Act is qualified by various
conditions and available only for genuine and lawful Trade Union activities and such a immunity
cannot be interpreted to give a blanket coverage to registered Trade Unions in respect of all the
agreements However it is also to be understood clearly that the immunity against criminal
conspiracy in respect of agreement is not available if the agreement is an agreement to commit
an offence" and it was clearly decided in R S. Rinker vs. Emperor, that in such a case the
members of a T.U. are liable to punishment for Criminal Conspiracy Immunity from civil suit in
certain cases (1) No Section 18 suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil
Court (1925) AC 700
against any Registered Trade Union o any lloffice-bearerl or member of any act done in
contemplation or further of a thereof in respect trade dispute to which a member of the Trade
Union is party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of
employment, or that it is an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other
person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills A
registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court
in respect of any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute by an agent
of the Trade Union if it is proved that such person acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to
express instructions given by, the executive of the Trade Union Commentary Section 18 provides
immunity to registered T.U. against civil liability in respect of any act done in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the T.U. is a party only on the ground that
such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is an
interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person. In fact this section
protects. T.U. actions which were, in absence of this Act, treated in restraint of trade and as such
the T.Us. were held responsible to make good of the loss sustained by the employer. Following
the Common Law of England the English Court required the Amalgamated Society of Railway
Servants the Affiliate Railway Company's case to pay a compensation of 23,000 the Railway
Co., and similarly in India, too, the Indian Court imposed similar punishment on B.P. Wadia in
the Buckingham and Carnatica Mills case requiring him to pay Rs.75,000 as damages to the
B&C Company allegedly on the ground that both the T.Us. by going on strike have acted in
restraint of trade of the respective employers. Hence Section 18 now provides the most essential
protection to the registered T.U. in the form of immunity from civil suits in such cases. Similarly
the last phrase of the sub-section (1) of Section 18, namely "or with the right of some other
person to dispose of his capital or of his labor as he wills" refer to the picketing whereby the
striking T.U. would not allow other worker willing to work and earn their wages by "disposing of
his labor as he wills". Thus in its cumulative effect the whole section protects action of the
registered T.U. to resort to strike or to picketing in furtherance of their trade dispute
Therefore, no sustainable in any Civil Court against registered T.U. "only" on he above grounds
However if the purpose of instituting a suit against T.U. is not only the above but something
more in addition to that then it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit
against the registered T.U (Sub-section 2) Immunity against tortious liability:- It is a common
observation that during the conduct of strike, sometimes, some of the members of T.U. or even
outsiders resort to violence and cross the no legal protection is av able to beyond em and clearly
they are guilty of contravening e principles of Criminal Law. In respect of such actions also the
TU was previously held vicariously responsible and tortious liability? for such actions o the
guilty workers even though the T.U. did not ask workers to do such acts Now sub-section (2) of
Section 18 grants protection to the registered T.U against such tortious liability in respect of the
acts done by the of the T.U. as its agent. However this protection is also subject to the condition
that it should be proved that such person acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to express
instructions given executive of the T.U The most celebrated case on the scope of the legislative
protection to the registered T.U. within the scope of Section 18 was elaborately explained by the
Patna High Court Rohtas Industries Staff Union vs. State of Bihari. The main argument of the
employers in this case was that the T.U. had resorted to an illegal strike within the meaning of
Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such it is not entitled to claim immunity
under Section 17 or either under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. The crucial question before
the Hon'ble Court was, whether the T.U. which resorted to an illegal strike with in the meaning
of Section 24 of the I.D. Act, 1947, still claim protection conferred upon it by virtue of Sections
17 and 18 of the T.U. Act, 1926. In other words, are the two provisions of T.U. Act vis-a-vis ID
Act are inter-dependent on each other. The High Court thus, examined the scope of Section 24 of
the ID Act and said that the provisions of the ID Act are in the interest of the public at large to
protect it from the effect of stoppage of production either by the or by the lockout of the
employers, and in case the illegal strike resorted in contravention to the provisions of Section 24
of the ID Act, the remedy is available in the form of punishment prescribed in Section 26 of the it
is open for the employer the remedy under the provision of Section 26(2) of the Act. The High
Court concluded the follows that the employers right of civil action for damages against have no
employees participating in an illegal strike within the meaning of Section 24(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act", Thus it is now clear that the protection under Section 18 of the T.U. Act given to
registered T.U. is not prevented mainly because the strike is illegal under Section 24 of the ID
Act
In another case, namely, Jay Engineering Works vs. Its Staff Chief Justice Sinha of the Calcutta
High Court in clearer terms summed up the cumulative effects and scope of Sections 17 and 18
of the T.U. Act thus "The net result of the decision set out above is that Sections and 18 of the
Indian Trade Unions Act grant certain exemptions to members of a Trade Union, but there is no
exemption against either an agreement to commit an offence or intimidation molestation or
violence, where they amount to an offence Thus, where it 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 Similarly in another case of Simpson Group Companies Workers Staff Union
vs. Amco Batteries Lrd.2 the Karnataka High Court laid down that a T.U. does not enjoy
immunity from illegal acts if its members cause interference in free movement of men and
material of the employer Thus to conclude, suffice it to say that the legislative protection to
registered T.U. der Sections 17 and 18 of the T.U. Act, is subject to condition so that could enjoy
this benefit only for the legitimate activities of T.U. as are specified in Sec.15 where such
activities are in furtherance and contemplation of any trade disputes within the prescribed limit
and scope of Sections 17 and 18 respectively Can employer obtain Injunction against T.U In Sri
Ramavikas Simpson & Group Companies Workers Union and services Ltd and another vs.
another, the Madras High Court held that if the workers on strike resort to picketing officers and
managerial staff from entering or leaving the premises and indulge in threat, intimidation and
gherao, the employer can approach the Civil Court and an injunction restraining the workers
from doing such unlawful acts can be obtained. In Kanger Sabha v. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd.
also similar view was held: Similarly in Indian Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. TM. Nagarajan
and others it has been held that the protection to registered T.U. granted under Section 18 of the
T.U. Act does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to grant relief to the employer against a
T.U. It was alleged in this case the T.U. resorted to violence, throwing of soda water bottles, acid
and bulbs and when certain documents in support of this allegation were submitted to the Civil
Court then, the suit would be maintainable
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the notion of general individual protection seems to have no correspondence in the
history and culture of other countries but in Italy. This reflects the specificity of a particular and
singular experience. Whilst trade unions elsewhere have interpreted in other ways their mission
of general interest, Italy has conceived its form of free, general and legal protection through the
establishment of the Patronato, consistent but distinct from collective protection, which is due
by the mother organizations: trade unions as such.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. www.whatishumanresource.com/the-trade-union-act-1926
2. www.adapt.it/englishbulletin/docs/CaldariniandCammilli.pdf

3. www.nishithdesai.com/.../user.../India-Trade-Unions-and-Collective-Bargaining.pdf

4. www.advocatekhoj.com/library/rules/.../61.php?Title...Protected%20workmen

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Labour Laws, Bare Act, Trade Union Act, 1926

2. Labour Laws, Khan & Khan, Paperback, Revised Edition, 2017