Vidyadhar Pandurang Rane Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and ors.

- Court
Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/364512

Subject Labour and Industrial

Court Mumbai High Court

Decided On Sep-30-2004

Case Number W.P. No. 2222 of 2004

Judge R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Reported in 2005(1)BomCR629; 2005(1)MhLj734

Bombay Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Acts
Regulations, 1976 - Rule 12(8)

Appellant Vidyadhar Pandurang Rane

Respondent Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and ors.

Appellant
Jaiprakash Sawant, Adv.
Advocate

Respondent
H.J. Shah, Adv., i/b., Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe
Advocate

Excerpt:
.....the indian trade unions act, 1926, and that merely because such an office bearer happens
to be a legal practitioner, and for that matter, even a medical practitioner or an engineer,
would not debar him from assisting the employee. laying stress on the word 'engage' in the
rule 12(8) of the said regulations, it was sought to be argued that the same denotes availing
services of a legal practitioner in his professional capacity as an advocate and not as a friend
or a well-wisher, who actively participates in the welfare movement for the workers or the
employees. , reported in [2002]supp5scr116 .6. the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it is well settled that the representation by a
lawyer in a domestic inquiry is not a fundamental right of a..........of an office bearer of a
trade union in such inquiry irrespective of the fact that he is a legal practitioner. the
respondent no. 3 thereupon by a letter dated 17th april, 2004 informed the petitioner that the
petitioner was at liberty to appoint any other office bearer of a union, who is not a legal
practitioner. the matter was thereupon referred to the respondent no. 2, in accordance with the
rule 32 of the said regulations pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 23rd april,
2004. the respondent no. 3 thereafter by a letter dated 25th' may, 2004 informed the petitioner
that the chairman, by his order dated 17th may, 2004, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner
and that, therefore, he may engage any office bearer of the union as his defence assistant, but,
such a.....

Judgement:

trade unions act, 1926. section 2(b) of the trade unions act, 1926 defines the term 'office-
bearer' and it states that 'office-bearer' in the case of a trade union includes any member of
the executive thereof but does not include an auditor.' it means that the term 'office-bearer' of
a trade union would include every member of its executive except an auditor. while
excluding the auditor from the definition ..... been specifically defined to have the same
meaning as provided to the said expression under the trade unions act, 1926 and, as already
seen above, in terms of the definition under section 2(b) of the trade unions act, 1926, the
said expression includes every member of the executive body of the union. it does not
exclude any member merely because he happens to be a legal practitioner. ..... the said
definition read with the decision of the apex court in paradip port trust's case (supra) .....
employee or, if the employee is a class iii or a class iv employee, of an 'office- bearer' as
defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the indian trade unions act, 1926 (16 of 1926), of the
union to which he belongs, to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless the said presenting officer

case 2:

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/651067

Subject Labour and Industrial

Court Supreme Court of India

Decided On Sep-11-1978

Case Number Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 1977

Judge D.A. Desai and; V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.

AIR1979SC262; [1978(37)FLR265]; 1979LabIC129; (1978)IILLJ412SC;

Reported in
(1979)2SCC88; [1979]1SCR590
 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 3; Payment of
Acts
Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 21, 34 and 34(1); Contract Act - Sections 2

Appellant Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

Respondent State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.

Appellant
Y. S. Chitale,; S. Swarup and; Sri Narain, Advs
Advocate

Respondent
G. N. Dikshit, ; M. V. Goawamo and ; O. P. Rana, Advs.
Advocate

Cases Referred State of U.P. and Anr. v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated October 19,
Prior history
1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal 412 of 1971.

Books referred Black's Legal Dictionary

Excerpt:
criminal - conflicting provisions - section 3 of uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947,
sections 21, 34 and 34 (1) of payment of bonus act, 1965 and section 2 of indian contract act
- whether section 3 is in conflict with section 34 (1) of central act - present case deals with
dispute related to payment of bonus to workers in sugar factory of appellant - sugar factories
form an important chunk of economy of uttar pradesh resulting in declaration of sugar supply
as essential service - using power under section 3 (c) state government appointed a tripartite
committee to recommend steps to be taken to resolve said dispute - issued notification to
recommend payment of bonus by government in accordance to central act of payment of
bonus - notification under section 3 (c) contemplated.....krishna iyer, j.1. undaunted by a
direction of the state government under the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947 (the
u.p. act, for short), unsuccessfully attacked before a learned single judge and in appeal from
his judgment, the appellant-owner of two sugar factories in uttar pradesh-has secured special
leave to reach this court and press before us a few jurisdictional points which, if valid, are
deprivatory of the impugned notification under section 3(b) of the act. before we open the
discussion, and, indeed, as paving the way for it, we may remind ourselves of a jural
fundamental articulated elegantly in a different context by mr. justice cardozo benjamin
nathan cardozo benjamin nathan cardozo 'what medicine can do for law' address before the
new york academy of medicine,.....
Judgement:

footing that a flare-up was in the offing and the state acted to pre-empt a break-down.14. it is pertinent to
note that the association is a trade union registered under the trade unions act, 1926. its functions are
indicated in the definition of 'trade union' in section 2(h) of that act and include regulating the relations
'between workmen and employers'. thus, the ..... agree with this specious, though plausible, submission. it
admits of no doubt that the association is a trade union registered under the trade unions act and the
functional competence of a trade union definitionally extends to regulating the relations between
workmen and employers. section 2(h) to negotiate an agreement on payment of bonus surely falls within
the scope of regulation of the ..... relations between the workmen and the employers. secondly, the
notification under section 3(c) itself authorises the committee to ..... entirety and the whole block of
employers minus the appellant, on a narrow construction of the notification under section 3(b) of the u.p.
industrial disputes act, 1947 or section 34 of the bonus act or section 2(c) of the contract act. labour law is
rough hewn and social justice sings a different tune. we reject, without hesitation,

case 3:

Southern Railway Mazdoor Union Vs. Mazdoor Welfare Trust - Court

Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/1169794

Court Chennai High Court

Decided On Jun-07-2013

Judge R.KARUPPIAH

Appellant Southern Railway Mazdoor Union

Respondent Mazdoor Welfare Trust

Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:07. 06-2013 coram the hon'ble
mr.justice v.ramasubramanian c.s.no.160 of 2004 1. the southern railway
mazdoor union rep. by its general secretary n.kanniah 191-b railway colony,
egmore, chennai-8.2. a.rajah sridhar 3. p.kumaresan .. plaintiffs vs.1. mazdoor
welfare trust, rep.by its managing trustee n.v.devi, 11-a/27 alamelumangapuram
2nd street chennai-4.2. n.v.devi 3. g.vadivelu 4. n.v.usha 5. s.tamilarasan 6.
anjalai ammal mahalingam engineering college rep. by its correspondent
kovilvenni, thiruvarur district. .. defendants ----- suit filed under order vii rule 1
of the civil procedure code seeking a judgment and decree (i) to direct the
removal of the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of managing trustee and trustees
of the first.....
Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

07. 06-2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

C.S.No.160 of 2004 1. The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union rep. by its General
Secretary N.Kanniah 191-B Railway Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8.

2. A.Rajah Sridhar 3. P.Kumaresan .. Plaintiffs Vs.

1. Mazdoor Welfare Trust, rep.by its Managing Trustee N.V.Devi, 11-A/27

Alamelumangapuram 2nd Street Chennai-4.

2. N.V.Devi 3. G.Vadivelu 4. N.V.Usha 5. S.Tamilarasan 6. Anjalai Ammal

Mahalingam Engineering College rep. by its Correspondent Kovilvenni,
Thiruvarur District. .. Defendants ----- Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the
Civil Procedure Code seeking a judgment and decree (i) to direct the removal of
the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of Managing Trustee and Trustees of the first
defendant viz. Mazdoor Welfare Trust; (ii) to frame a scheme for proper
administration of the first defendant trust and its college, namely 6th defendant
college with due participation among the members of the plaintiff union; (iii) to
grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5, their men, agents
or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the management of the
first defendant trust, namely the Mazdoor Welfare Trust and the 6th defendant
college, namely Anjalaiammal Mahalingam Engineering College, Kovilveni
Village, Thiruvaroor District; (iv) to direct the defendants 2 to 5 to render
accounts from February 2001 of the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant
college; and (v) for costs. ----- For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, S.C. For
Mr.A.Jinasenan For Defendants 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran For Mr.T.P.Senthil
Kumar For Defendant-3 : Mr.A.Narayanan For Defendant -4 : Mr.R.Yashod
Vardhan, S.C. For Mr.G.J.Baskaranarayanan For Defendant-5 :
Mr.K.Harishankar ----- C O M M O N

JUDGMENT

This suit has been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for
framing a Scheme for the administration of a Public Charitable Trust, by name
Mazdoor Welfare Trust and for various other reliefs.

2. There are also two other suits, filed by the 5th defendant herein, challenging
his removal from Trusteeship and Correspondentship of the 6th defendant
College. But I chose to deal with the above suit first, as it happens to be a Scheme
suit. If a Scheme is framed for the administration of the Trust in that suit, the
other two suits will automatically fall in line.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the

plaintiffs, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2,
Mr.A.Narayanan, learned counsel for the third defendant, Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan,
learned senior counsel for the fourth defendant and Mr.K.Harishankar, learned
counsel for the fifth defendant.