A Trade Union is an intentional association of the laborers in a particular industry or occupation. Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India[1] ensures opportunity of relationship as a central right and gives the laborers, right to consolidate and put together for aggregate activity or deal. Nonetheless, a right isn’t accessible for a specific class of occupations. It is because of the sensible limitation which can be forced by the Government according to the arrangements of the Constitution of India.”
As per G.D.H. Cole: A worker’s organization implies a relationship of laborers in at least one callings an affiliation is continued for the most part to secure and propelling the individuals’ monetary interest regarding their everyday work.[2]Section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926[3] characterizes Trade Union as “any mix whether brief or extremely durable, framed basically.
Historical Perspective
The key regulation relevant to trade unions in India is the Trade Union Act, 1926. The 19th-century industrial revolution drastically altered England and other nations in the west. The IR evolution, which altered social life, induced drastic changes in every aspect of manufacturing, notably shipping, production methods, and logistics.
Every society saw considerable growth as a result of scientific and technological advancements in the industrial sector, which led to the creation of two classes: the working class (wage earning class) and the managerial class (entrepreneur class). Despite possessing competing interests, these two classes worked very hard to accomplish the same goals. While the entrepreneur class envisioned maximum production at minimum rates, the working class demanded higher salaries and improved working conditions. This large nation began to mimic the industrial development of Western countries, albeit slowly at first.”
“The Industrial Revolution led to the emergence of the trade union movement in India as the country’s economic framework grew more complex.[4] The rise of trade union movements in India was extremely slow because of the country’s poor industrial development prior to World War I. The slow rate of growth of trade union movements in India was partly caused by the erratic behavior of the labour force, a lack of leadership, and the limitation of freedom of expression during British rule.[5]”
“Prior to independence, the colonial government acted to defend the interests of British business owners and to encourage foreign employers. When it came to ensuring that workers had minimal workplace requirements and adjudicating labor issues, the British Colonial Government was operating in a mechanical manner.
Following independence, the Indian government executed numerous labor welfare laws that gave the working-class rights and benefits, and it additionally provided them a fair deal. “Welfare Legislations” refers to laws aimed at improving the welfare of workers, such as the Factories Act of 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, the Payment of Wages Act of 1965, the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923, the Employees Provident Funds Act of 1952, the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, etc.”
“A nonprofit organization of workers in a particular industry or profession is called a trade union. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(c) grants workers the freedom to associate and organize for wage negotiations or action as a basic right. However, certain categories of occupations do not qualify for this kind of privilege. It’s because of the reasonable constraints that the Indian government can place in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Constitution.”
The Trade Unions Act, 1926 forbids government employees from establishing unions (Tamil Nadu N.G.O. Union vs. Registrar of Trade Unions, LLJ 753 (Mad)).[6]
“A dispute raised by a dismissed employee/workman will not be treated as an industrial dispute, unless it is supported by a trade union, registered or not, or by a body or section of workmen, the Supreme Court of India and the majority of Industrial Tribunals held in distinct rulings. Therefore, for a disagreement to be classified as an industrial dispute, it must be represented by a trade union, a portion of the workforce, or a body of workers. If not, it will be regarded as a private dispute.”
Important elements of Trade Union
- There must be combination of workmen and employers;
- There must be trade or business; and
- The main object of the Union must be to regulate relations of employers and employees or to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business.
Privileges and Immunities of Registered Trade Unions
“The Trade Unions Act, 1926 presents certain advantages and invulnerabilities to the individuals and heads of the enrolled worker’s guilds to empower them to do their authentic worker’s organization exercises with no dread or danger of common or criminal activity/risk. It is the main right without which the workplace carriers of the enlisted worker’s guilds will most likely be unable to release their obligations proficiently.”
“The Trade Unions Act, 1926 has made arrangements for the individuals and office-carriers of an enrolled worker’s guild from criminal and common intrigues during the strikes and making any monetary misfortune the business.”
“Under Sections 17 and 18 the Trade Unions Act, 1926 an enlisted worker’s guild gets insusceptibility in certain lawbreaker, common, and legally binding procedures.”
“It was held after 1921 Buckingham and Carnatic Mills case. There was a strike by the specialists of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills in the city of Madras (presently called Chennai), India, against the overseeing organization, Binny and Co. The strike, which endured from June to October 1921, made extreme misfortunes the Madras economy.”
Immunity From Civil Suit in Specific Cases (Sec 18)
- “No suit or other legal action will be viable in any Civil Court against any enrolled Trade Union or any office-conveyor or part thereof in regard of any demonstration done in examination or promotion of an exchange debate to which an individual from the Trade Union is a party on the ground just that such demonstration incites another individual to break an agreement of work, or that it is in impedance with the exchange, business or work of another individual or with the right of another individual to discard his capital or of his work as he wills.”
- “An enlisted Trade Union will not be at risk in any suit or other judicial procedure in any Civil Court in regard of any convoluted demonstration done in examination or promotion of an exchange debate by a specialist of the Trade Union in case it is demonstrated that such individual acted without the information on, or in spite of express guidelines given by, the chief of the Trade Union.”
- “The topic of invulnerability under segment 18 of the Trade Union Act was managed for the situation between Ahmedabad Textile Research Association versus Atira Employees Union and Anr. [7]wherein the division seat of the Gujarat High Court held that as long as the holding of shows or yelling of trademarks, showing of notices or holding of dharnas don’t turn unlawful, convoluted or rough such worker’s guild exercises is admissible and genuine.”
- “Notwithstanding, while at the same time articulating its judgment the Court was additionally of the assessment that any exercises with respect to making harm the property of and hindering entrance into and departure from the offended parties’ organization will be understood as unlawful and convoluted and couldn’t be secured.
In choosing the degree of resistance accessible to a worker’s guild under the arrangement of area 18 of the Trade Union Act the Karnataka High Court in Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union versus Amco Batteries Ltd. [8] decided that till the activity of the association are serene the association can appreciate insusceptibility under the Act.”
“It held that the direct of the laborers in the moment case in obstructing the entry of men and material of the Plaintiff-Company despises resistance under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. It was likewise seen by the Court that under a lock out or strike circumstance the insurance under area 18 doesn’t get expanded.” - “If it can be demonstrated that an agent of the union acted in a tortious manner in the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute without the knowledge of or in contradiction of specific instructions from the union executive, the registered union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court.”
- “In particular circumstances, such as contractual liability, tortuous liability, etc., the leaders and office bearers of registered trade unions are shielded from civil suits, according to this provision.”
Important Case Laws
There are judicial precedents which paved the way for interpretation and implementation of this provision of immunity, they are –
R.S. Ruikar v Emperor[9]
The applicant through a revision petition made an appeal to the Nagpur High Court against the order of conviction. The applicant was the President of Nagpur Textile Union who was charged under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law for his speech during a strike which encouraged the picketing of the Mills and also for the abetment of picketing by his wife.
Although the petitioner contended that S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law has no application on industrial disputes and it is directed towards activities subversive to the Government, the Court rejected all these contentions and held that S. 7 has its universal application and also it is not against the criminal immunity as provided by S.17 of the Trade Union Act. S.17 itself makes liable the members and officers of a Trade Union for an agreement to commit any offence. It only protects from making an agreement that is directed towards achieving any objectives of the Trade Union and from only the offence of Criminal conspiracy.
Simpson & Group Companies Workers And … vs Amco Batteries Ltd.[10]
Actions by a trade union that involve physical obstruction and intimidation are not protected under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The courts can intervene to prevent significant harm to an employer’s business operations caused by such actions.
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Grindlays Bank Employees’ Association[11]
The plaintiff, a bank with its main office in Calcutta, filed a complaint against respondent trade unions and their office-bearers following the introduction of a voluntary retirement scheme on May 26, 2001. This led to protests by union members, which included illegal activities such as demonstrations, intimidation of employees, and blocking access to bank offices. On July 18, 2001, union members went on strike, obstructing entrances and threatening employees, causing operational disruptions and safety concerns. The plaintiff sought police protection, but the response was inadequate, prompting the bank to seek a legal injunction to maintain public peace. The central issue was whether a permanent injunction should be granted to restrain the defendants from various disruptive activities at the bank’s offices.
The court found that the conflict between the Trade Unions Act and Section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act warranted judicial intervention. It ruled that actions becoming punishable under the Banking Regulation Act could not be justified as part of a trade dispute. The court emphasized that civil courts can issue injunctions for acts causing harm, even if criminal in nature. It concluded that the defendants’ demonstrations, while possibly peaceful, undermined depositor confidence and obstructed normal banking operations. The court determined that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case for the injunction, making the interim order absolute and denying the defendants’ application to dismiss it. No costs were awarded.
Ahmedabad Textile Research … vs Atira Employees Union And Anr[12]
The court emphasized the need to balance between protecting the rights of trade unions to pursue their demands and preventing unlawful, violent, or tortious acts. The interim injunction’s scope was deemed too broad, and the court adjusted the order to align with the legal standards governing trade union activities. The decision underscores the importance of precise allegations and evidence when seeking injunctions that could affect labor rights and union activities.
M/S. Orchid Chemicals & … vs B.Ramakoteswara Rao[13]
This case highlights issue around the alleged vindictive transfers of employees linked to the formation of the 17th respondent union. The respondents’ argument that these transfers were retaliatory suggests a deeper tension between management and labor relations, particularly in environments where unionization efforts can trigger swift and adverse managerial responses. The claim of ulterior motives on the part of the petitioner emphasizes the importance of transparency and fair treatment in workplace relations, especially when new unions are formed.
The court’s ruling that the defendants engaged in unlawful actions by obstructing access to the factory underscores the critical nature of maintaining operational integrity in industries that impact public health. By recognizing the significant repercussions of the defendants’ actions on public interest, the court emphasizes that while strikes are a fundamental right, they cannot come at the expense of public safety or the fulfillment of essential services.
Rohtas Industries Staff Union And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 2 May, 1962[14]
A writ petition in the nature of Certiorari filed in the Patna High Court to quash the order of the arbitrators, which imposed compensation to be paid by the petitioner and its members for the loss incurred during the strike to the employers-respondents. The Patna High while declaring the said order as illegal and ultra vires, held that the legality or illegality of the strike under S.24(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not prevent from taking the benefit of S.18 of the Trade Union Act.
Also, the Court observed that a conspiracy by the Union or its members to forward or defend their interests is not actionable even if it damages the other person. The court found the arbitrators’ order to be illegal and ultra vires due to their failure to apply the principle of determining the predominant object or motive of the conspirers.
Conclusion
The trade union act provides for the civil immunity to the trade unions for the sake of protecting their valid and agitation against the employers so that without fear they can engage into the process of representing their voice as displayed via these cases.
[1] http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-8.htm.
[2]https://www.hpuniv.ac.in/hpuniv/upload/uploadfiles/files/MC%20404%20HRM%20(b)%20Management%20of%20Industrial%20Relations.pdf
[3] Trade union act, 16 T.U. A.C.T. § 2 (legislative department 1926).
[4] https://blog.ipleaders.in/trade-unions-act-1926/
[5]https://www.jstor.org/stable/27767929 .
[6]https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-union-madras-and-another-v-tamil-nadu-non-gazetted-government-officers-registrar-of-trade-unions-madras/
[7] Ahmedabad Textile Research Association v. Atira Employees Union and Anr., (1995 (1) LLN 348).
[8] Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union v. Amco Batteries Ltd (1991 LLR 95 Karn HC; 1994 II LLN 147).
[9] R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nag 149.
[10] Simpson & Group Companies Workers And … v. Amco Batteries Ltd., 1990(3) KARLJ222.
[11] Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Grindlays Bank Employees’ Association, AIR 2002 (NOC) 17 (CAL).
[12] Ahmedabad Textile Research … v. Atira Employees Union and Anr., (1994) IILLJ912GUJ.
[13] Central Machine Tool Institute, v. Asst. Labour Commissioner and Ors., (1979) ILLJ192KANT.
[14] Rohtas Industries Staff Union and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1963) PAT170.
Author: Jayana Mishra, a student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.
