Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay v. Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd (1985) I LLJ 314

BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS UNION V. BALMER LAWRIE

ISSUE:

Whether a recognized trade union has the exclusive right to represent all workmen in an industry, including those who are not members of the union?

RULE:

Forming an association is entirely independent and different from its recognition. Recognition of a union confers rights, duties and obligations. Non-conferring of such rights, duties and obligations on a union other than the recognised union does not put it in an inferior position nor the charge of discrimination can be entertained. The members of a non-recognised association can fully enjoy their fundamental freedom of speech and expression as also to form the association.

FACTS:

The Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay, was a recognized trade union representing the workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd.
The union had a settlement with the company, which resolved a number of industrial disputes pending between them.
The appellant, a non-recognized union challenged in a writ petition before the High Court the constitutional validity of Clause 17 of the Settlement on the grounds, inter alia.
(i) that Clause 17 permits a compulsory exaction not parented by the Payment of Wages Act from the arrears payable to the workmen who are not the members of the recognised union; (ii) that section 20 of the 1971 Act is unconstitutional, since:
(a) it 1 unquestionably denies to the workman who are not members of a recognised union, the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and(e) in as much as it inheres the pernicious tendency to compel the Workmen to join the union which has acquired the status of a recognised union even if it followed a socio- economic or socio-political philosophy contrary to the philosophy of non members;
(b) it denies to the unrecognized union, the right to effectively participate in any proceeding concerning the workmen of an industrial
undertaking, some of whom have formed a separate trade union and (c) it does not treat all the unions at par as the members of non-recognised union are compelled to be bound by the action of the recognised union.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the same was affirmed in appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Hence this appeal.

HELD:

A recognized trade union does not have the exclusive right to represent all workmen in an industry, including those who are not members of the union.
The right of a workman to form an association and to be represented by that association is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
This right cannot be denied to a workman simply because he is not a member of a recognized trade union.
A recognized trade union has a special status and certain privileges, such as the right to negotiate with the employer on behalf of all workmen in the industry.
However, these privileges do not give the recognized trade union the exclusive right to represent all workmen in the industry.
The court reasoned that the right of a workman to form an association and to be represented by that association is a fundamental right that cannot be denied simply because the workman is not a member of the recognized trade union.
If under a settlement with the representative union some benefits accrue to the workmen, and upon a true
interpretation of Sec. 20(2)(b), it is held all-encompassing and therefore binding on all workmen employers alike, all the
benefits would be available to the workmen who are not members of the representative union and who may have formed
a rival union.
If these workmen could not be denied the benefits, they would enjoy an unfair advantage if from the
package deal covered by the settlement, they draw benefits and accrue liabilities.
Therefore, a clause like Clause 17 of the Settlement has to be understood in the context of strengthening the trade union movement and to free it from financial constraints. Workmen who are members of a union may pay fee for membership and enjoy the advantage or
membership put if by the action of the representative union all workmen acquire benefit or monetary advantage, the members and non-members alike can be made to make common sacrifice in the large interest of trade union movement and to strengthen the trade union which by its activities acquired the benefits for all workmen.
Payment to trade union fund in these circumstances can be styled as quid pro quo for benefits acquired.
It can neither be said to be compulsory exaction nor a tax.
Therefore, there is nothing objectionable in Clause 17 of the Settlement which directs the employer to deduct 15% of the gross arrears payable to each employee under the settlement as contribution to the trade union funds.