INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT

1. Works Committee:
 It is established not only to secure cooperation between workers and employers, but
also to make the will of the employees effective as they start working in the
management.
 According to section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in case an Industry which
contains 100 or more workmen which are employed by the Industry or have been
employed on any of the day preceding twelve months, then the appropriate
Government by ordinary or particular order, acquire their employer to build a works
committee which contains details of representatives of employers and workmen
engaged in the Industry.

2. Conciliation Officers
 are appointed by the appropriate government.
 There duties can be of mediating between employer and employee.
 They can also promote settlement between varied industrial disputes.
 Generally, conciliation officers are appointed for a specified area or a specified
industry in a specified area.
 The appointment of a Conciliation officer may be permanent or temporary

3. Court of Inquiry
 The court of Inquiry consists of thirteen or more independent persons which are
required to investigate about any subject.
 They are made aware about an industrial dispute.
 A court of Inquiry court consists of two or more members and out of those 2 members
any one of them will be appointed as a chairman.

4. Labour Court
 Under Section 7 of Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 a labour court is established. The
government has been empowered to establish one or more Labour Courts.
 The main function of a Labour Court is to settle various kinds of industrial disputes
concerning any matter specified in the second schedule.
Some of the matters which take place under a labour court are:
 The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders.
 The application and interpretation of standing orders.
 The discharge or dismissal of various workers, including the retirement, which are
employed in an Industry.
 Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege

5. Industrial Tribunal:
The appropriate Government by notification within the legal Gazette can establish one or
additional industrial tribunals for the judgment of industrial disputes regarding any matters
particularly
 Wages embrace the amount and mode of payment
 Compensative and different allowances
 Hours of labour and rest intervals.
 Leave with wages and holidays.
 Bonus, percentage, provident fund and gratuity.
 Shift operating otherwise than by standing orders
 Rules of discipline
 Rationalization

6. National Tribunal:
The Central Government by notification within the legal Gazette, establish one or additional
National Industrial Tribunals for the judgment of business disputes within the opinion of the
Central Government involve queries of the national importance of business institutions set in
additional than one State square measure possible to be interested or laid low with such
disputes.

Whether hospitals are an industry?

1. STATE OF BOMBAY v. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA -H is an industry
 In 1960, Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case brought hospitals within ambit of industry.
 This case involved payment of retrenchment compensation to workmen in JJ Hospitals,
Mumbai.
 The Management pleaded that the Hospital was not involved in any trade or business and
hence they are not industry.
 Court framed a working principle that any systematic activity for production or
distribution of goods or services done with help of employees in the manner of a trade
or business is an industry.
 The services in the hospital were held to be material service and hence Hospitals are
industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
 The reason for giving a wide interpretation to the word Industry was that the Court
wanted to bring organizations within fold of ID Act so that a large number of agitations
and strikes could be curtailed and industrial peace could prevail.
2. MANAGEMENT OF SAFDARJANG HOSPITAL v. KULDIP SINGH- H not an
industry
 This judgment addresses appeals from Safdarjung Hospital, Tuberculosis Hospital, and
Kurji Holy Family Hospital, questioning whether they qualify as "industries" under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the first case, Safdarjung Hospital's management
contested a claim by employee Kuldip Singh Sethi for salary computation under the Act,
arguing the hospital was not an industry. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Sethi, declaring
the hospital an industry and awarding him Rs. 914. In the second case, Tuberculosis
Hospital's management challenged the applicability of the Act in a dispute over pay
scales, arguing similarly that the hospital was not an industry.
 This case reversed the judgment of Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case
 Material services involve an activity carried on through co-operation between
employers and employees to provide the community with the use of something such as
electric power, water, transportation, mail delivery, telephones and the like.
 Such material services qualify to be included as Industry.
 But for professionals like Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, material service do not arise as
they are not engaged in occupation in which employers and employees co-operate.
 Hence, organizations like Hospitals and Educational institutions do not fall within
industry.

3. DHANRAJGIRI HOSPITAL v. WORKMEN- H is not an industry

 In Dhanrajgiri Hospital v. Workmen, the main activity of the hospital was imparting of
training in nursing and the beds in the hospital were meant for their practical training.
 It was held not to be an industry, as it was not carrying on any economic activity in the
nature of trade or business.

4. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAJAPPA – H is an

industry
 FACTS:
 A Rajappa was an employee of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. There
was an existing dispute between the Board and their employees. It was a labour dispute.
 The reason behind the dispute was that the Bangalore Water Supply Board imposed fines
on the employees, on account of misconduct by the employees. Here, the imposed fine
was highly unreasonable and unfair. Therefore, the employees decided to take action
against such a heavy
 fine.
 The suit was filed against the Board on such injustice, under Section 33 (2) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and contended that the fine was against the principle of
"natural justice".
 The court overruled its earlier decision in Management of Safdarjung Hospital, National
and Dhanrajagirji Hospital v The Workmen.
 After reviewing earlier decisions of the court this case devised a triple test to determine
whether an activity can be called industry or not. These tests were:
Any industry where:
(a) there is a-
i. A Systematic activity,
ii. Organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial
element is commercial),
iii. For the production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things) or
services geared to celestial bliss, i.e. making, of a large scale prasad or (food), prima
facie enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive of gainful objective is irrelevant be the venture in the public,
joint, private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special
emphasis on the employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business, it does not cease to be one because of
philanthropy animating the undertaking.

Whether clubs are an industry?

5. CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA V. BOMBAY LABOUR UNION
the question was whether the Cricket Club of India, Bombay which was a member's club and
not a proprietary club, although it was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act
was an industry or not.
The club had membership of about 4800 and was employing 397 employees.
It was held that the club was a self-service institution and not an industry and it was wrong
to equate the catering facilities provided by the club to its members or their guests (members
paying for that), with a hotel.
The catering facility also was in the nature of self service by the club to its members. This
case has now been overruled.

6. MADRAS GYMKHANA CLUB EMPLOYEES' UNION V. MANAGEMENT;

This was a member's club and not a proprietary club with a membership of about 1200.
Its object was to provide a venue for sports and games and facilities for recreation and
entertainment.
It was running a catering department which provided food and refreshment not only
generally but also on special occasion.
It was held that the club was a member's self-serving institution and not an industry.
No doubt the material needs or wants of a section of the community were catered but that
was not enough as it was not done as part of trade or business or as an undertaking
analogous to trade or business.
This case has also been overruled.
Now it is not necessary that the activity should be a trade or business or analogous to trade or
business
It may, therefore, be submitted that both Cricket Club of India and Madras Gymkhana Club
would now be an industry because they fulfill the triple test laid down in Bangalore Water
Supply case.
Both are systematically organized with the co-operation of employer and employee for
distribution of service to satisfy human wishes.

Whether municipalities are an industry?

1. 1953 CASE D.N. BANERJEE V P.R. MUKHERJEE
 Pratul Chandra Mitra and Phanindra Nath Ghose, employees of the Budge Budge
Municipality, were suspended in July 1949 for alleged negligence and insubordination.
 After their explanations were rejected, the Municipality dismissed them in August 1949.
The Municipal Workers' Union challenged the dismissal, and the Industrial Tribunal ruled
it as victimization, ordering their reinstatement in February 1950.
 that municipalities are industries.
 The court's reasoning was that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 applies to
municipalities and their employees, and that the term "industrial dispute" includes
disagreements between municipalities and their workers.
 The court also gave a broad interpretation to the term "industry" to include activities
that aren't considered trade or business.
 For example, the court ruled that sanitation and conservation was an undertaking that was
comparable to trade and industry.
 The court's goal was to reduce the number of strikes and agitations and to promote
industrial peace

2. CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR V. ITS EMPLOYEES

 The Supreme Court provided the distinction between sovereign and non- sovereign
function
 It was held that the sovereign functions of the Municipal Corporation are outside the
scope of the definition of industry under Section 2(j) but the non-sovereign functions of
the Municipal Corporation are within the scope of Section 2(j). It held as follows:
A. If there is rendering of service by an individual or a private person. Then it will be equally
be an industry in the hands of a corporation.
B. The employees who are rendering the service in the departments are connected with
service of financial, administrative or executive and they will be gradually entitled to the
benefits of the Act.
The court also held that the Departments of the Municipal Corporation which perform
welfare activities fall within the definition of industry under Section 2(j) of the Act. For
example:
(i) Sewerage Department
(ii) Public Works Department
(iii)Education Department
(iv)Water works Department etc.

Whether educational institutes are an industry?

1. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI V. RAM NATH
 bus drivers at Miranda House, University College for Women, were terminated by the
University of Delhi and its Principal due to financial losses from running buses for
girl students.
 The respondents filed petitions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking
retrenchment compensation.
 The appellants argued that the university was not an employer under Section 2(g), that
its activities did not constitute an industry under Section 2(j), and that the applications
under Section 33C(2) were incompetent.
 The tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, directing the appellants to pay
compensation.
 The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ultimately held that education
does not fall under the definition of "industry" as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
 The Court reasoned that the role of subordinate staff in educational institutions is
minor and incidental, and it would be unreasonable to classify educational activities
as an industry based on such work.
 Therefore, the retrenchment claims were not valid under the Act.

2. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY V. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

 The General Secretary of the Osmania University Mazdoor Sangh claimed the University
discriminated by not applying the agreed Rs. 26-1-30 wage scale to all workers and by denying a
dearness allowance of Rs. 26 to some low-paid employees. The Tribunal found that nine
categories of workers, including chaprasis and sweepers, were entitled to the allowance from
April 1952. The University argued that, as an educational institution, it was not an "industry"
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus disputes with its employees should not fall
under the Act.
 a dispute having arisen between the Osmania University and its employees, the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, after closely examining the Constitution of the University, held
the dispute not to be in connection with an industry.
 The correct test, for ascertaining whether the particular dispute is between the capital
and labour, is whether they are engaged in cooperation, or whether the dispute has
 arisen in activities connected directly with, or attendant upon, the production or
distribution of wealth.

3. AHMEDABAD TEXTILES RESEARCH ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF BOMBAY

 An association was formed for founding a scientific research institute. The institute
was to carry on research in connection with the textile and other allied trades to
increase efficiency.
 The Supreme Court held that "though the association was established for the purpose
of research, its main object was the benefit of the members of the association, the
association is organised, and arranged in the manner in which a trade or business is
generally organised; it postulates cooperation between employers and employees;
moreover the personnel who carry on the research have no right in the result of the
research. For these reasons the association was held to be "an industry".
 But a society which is established with the object of catering to the intellectual as
distinguished from material needs of men by promoting general knowledge of the
country by conducting research and publishing various journals and books is not an
industry

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
In India collective bargaining contracts can be enforced under Section 18 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as a settlement arrived at between the workers and the employers. The
appropriate government may refer the dispute over a breach of contract to a labour court or to
an industrial Disputes.
What is collective bargaining?
 Collective bargaining is a method by which problems of wages and conditions of
employments are resolved amicably (although of reluctantly) peacefully and
voluntarily between labour and management.
 It is made up from two words collective which means “group” and bargaining which
means “proposals and counter proposals”.
 it is a process in which the representatives of a labour organization & the
representatives of business organization meet and attempt to negotiate a contract or
agreement, which specifies the nature of employee-employer union relationship.

1. KARNAL LEATHER KARAMCHARI SANGATHAN V. LIBERTY FOOTWEAR

COMPANY
 The respondent, Liberty Footwear Company, a partnership firm based in Karnal, Haryana,
faced a serious dispute with its workers, who claimed that the management had illegally
terminated over 200 employees. The company denied this, asserting that those individuals
were not employed by them at the time. The unresolved dispute led to a violent strike,
prompting the management to lay off more workers, which escalated tensions. The situation
became a law and order issue, involving the police and local authorities. The Labour
Commissioner and state ministers intervened, leading to a settlement on March 31, 1988.
 Both parties agreed to form a committee, consisting of representatives from both
management and the workers' union, with the Deputy Commissioner of Karnal as the
President, to arbitrate the dispute.
 Collective bargaining has been defined by the Supreme Court (“SC”) as “the
technique by which dispute as to conditions of employment is resolved amicably by
agreement rather than coercion”.

2. RAMNAGAR SUGAR CANE V. JATIN CHAKRAVORTY

The Supreme Court held that when a trade union of workmen arrives at a settlement in the
course of conciliation proceedings, the said settlement would bind not only the members of
the union which signed it the settlement but all workmen employed in the establishment
to which the dispute relates and all workmen who subsequently become employed in the
establishment.

3. IN ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, 1961(II) LLJ 385 (SC)
 In this case, it was argued that Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
the right to form associations or unions, also includes the right to effective collective
bargaining and the right to strike.
 However, the Supreme Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(c) only extends to the
formation of associations or unions.
 The activities or steps taken by these unions to achieve their objectives are subject to laws
that cannot be tested under Article 19(4).
 The Court concluded that even with a liberal interpretation, Article 19(1)(c) does not
guarantee trade unions the right to effective collective bargaining or the right to strike.
 These rights can be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation, and the
validity of such legislation is not to be judged by the criteria under Article 19(4), but by other
considerations.

WORK COMMITTEE
Work committee
1. Both employer and employee involved
2. Discuss common concerns on factory plant etc
3. Body representatives of the workers
4. Representative elected to negotiate with the management
Composition of work committee
1. Set up under section 3 of the industrial disputes act
2. Every establishment with 100 or more workers has to set up a committee
3. As a scheme of workers participation in management
4. Equal representatives from employer and employees
aims and objective
1. Promote measures for maintaining relations
 2. Sort out differences of opinion
3. Negotiate on general interests
4. Maintain industrial peace
5. Share workload
6. Encourage workers to have a say
7. Ideas for workplace and workers
Functions
1. Day to day functioning
2. Health
3. Safety
4. Welfare
5. Find funds
6. Educational and recreational activities
7. Festivals and national holidays
8. Promotion of savings
9. Enforcement of decisions
Reasons of failure
1. Not effective in maintaining peace and harmony
2. Aversion of employers towards blue collar workers
3. No competence or interest of representatives
4. No feedback
5. Vagueness of purposes
6. Only on papers no actual functioning

1. UNION OF INDIA V. M.T.S.S.D. WORKERS UNION

 the respondents challenged the division of constituencies for the Works Committee
election for 1984-86, arguing it was not allowed under the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957.
 The High Court agreed, stating that the division was not permissible under the relevant
rules, particularly when more than 50% of workers belonged to a single registered trade
union.
 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that if a registered trade
union has over 50% membership in an establishment, the election should proceed without
dividing constituencies.
 The Court clarified that constituency division under Rule 42 only applies when no single
union has majority representation.
 Since the respondent union had more than 50% membership, further division into
constituencies was unnecessary and not allowed.

2. NORTHBROOK JUTE COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER V.THEIR WORKMEN

 the employer introduced a scheme of rationalization that increased workloads and

potentially rendered some employees surplus.
  The Court held that the workmen's representatives on the Works Committee only
represented the workers for specific committee functions.
 Therefore, their approval of the rationalization scheme was not binding on the
workmen or their union.
 The Court ruled that the introduction of the rationalization scheme was a prejudicial
alteration of service conditions.
 This alteration did not occur when the notice under Section 9A of the Industrial
Disputes Act was issued but when the scheme was actually implemented on
December 16.
 Implementing the scheme during the pendency of a tribunal reference was a
violation of Section 33 of the Act.
 The closure of the mills by the employer under these circumstances amounted to an
illegal lockout.
 As a result, the workmen who were unable to work due to the lockout were entitled
to wages for the period of absence caused by it.

TRADE UNION ACT 1926

Recognition of trade union

 Expressed recognition by employer or employer’s association

 Different from registration
 Recognition only to those unions that have 50% of the employees as members
 Only the employer has the power to award recognition or rejection to trade unions
 2 types of recognition: statutory and voluntary
 Voluntary- when employer recognises voluntarily
 Statutory- no agreement between employer and employee, employees can apply for
statutory recognition only if employer employs 21 or more employees

Conditions for recognition

 All member are workmen in the same industry

 Representative is employed by the employer
 Rules do not exclude any class of workmen from membership
 Rules have procedure for declaring strike
 Meeting of executive- every 6 months
 Registered trade union

For recognition under code of discipline

 1 year standing
 In case of multiple unions, one with more members gets recognised
 If 25% of the workers are member if the union it can be recognised as the
representative union for industry in local area
 The local unions if they have more than 50% of the membership of the locality, can
be recognized to represent their grievances.
 The recognition granted will be valid for 2 years.
 The unions which do not follow code of discipline will not be granted recognition.
Office-bearer

The Trade Unions Act of 1926 defines office bearers as people who hold office in a trade
union. The act also states that registered trade unions must have office bearers who are
responsible for: Safeguarding funds and Conducting annual audits.

1. CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA. V. ALL ORISSA STATE BANK OFFICERS

ASSOCIATION,

 the issue was whether a non-recognized union, like the All Orissa State Bank
Officers Association, had the right to represent and espouse the grievances of bank
officers with the management.
 The association challenged a bank circular that restricted dialogue with non-
recognized unions, arguing it violated the Verification of Membership and
Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994.
 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that while a non-
recognized union does not have the right to participate in collective bargaining on
general workmen's issues, it still has the right to discuss individual grievances of its
members with the employer and represent them in domestic or departmental inquiries.
 The Court recognized that non-recognized unions are acknowledged by the Trade
Union Act and the relevant rules, and thus, the management cannot completely refuse
to engage with them on matters relating to individual service conditions.
 The judgment clarified that the rights of non-recognized unions are limited to
specific issues concerning individual members and do not extend to broader
collective bargaining rights.

Section 17- criminal conspiracy in trade disputes

 It states that no member or office-bearer of a registered trade union can be punished

under Section 120B(2) of the Indian Penal Code for any agreement made to further
the trade union's objectives, unless the agreement is to commit a crime.
 The immunity granted by Sections 17 and 18 of the Act is intended to protect trade
union activity from being stifled.

2. R. S. RUIKAR V. EMPEROR,

 the applicant was convicted under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1932, for abetting the offense of molestation and was sentenced to six months of
rigorous imprisonment.
 The court examined whether the conviction under Section 7 of the Act for abetment of
molestation was legally sustainable.
 Section 7 penalizes actions such as obstructing, using violence, or intimidating a
person to prevent them from exercising their legal rights, with the intent to
prejudice their employment or business.
 In this case, the applicant argued that Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
conflicts with the Trade Unions Act of 1926, which grants trade unions immunity
from liability in connection with strikes, including criminal conspiracy. The
 applicant claimed that applying Section 7 to trade disputes would undermine these
protections.
 However, the court found no conflict between the two laws.
 It clarified that while the Trade Unions Act provides immunity from civil and
conspiracy charges for lawful activities related to trade disputes, it does not offer
immunity from other criminal offenses. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, which defines a specific criminal offense, applies universally, including to
actions taken during trade disputes. The court upheld the applicant's conviction for
abetting an offense under Section 7, confirming that this section does not conflict with
the Trade Unions Act.

Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act - Immunity in civil suits

provides immunity to registered trade unions and their office-bearers or members from civil
suits in respect of acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. This immunity
applies even if the act causes someone to break a contract of employment or interferes with
trade, business, or employment. Additionally, a registered trade union is not liable for tortious
acts committed by its agents during a trade dispute if it is proven that the agent acted without
the union's knowledge or against its explicit instructions.

Section 19 of the Trade Unions Act – agreements

states that agreements between members of a registered trade union are not considered void
or voidable solely because their objectives may restrain trade. However, it also specifies that
Civil Courts cannot entertain legal proceedings aimed at enforcing or seeking damages for
breaches of agreements related to conditions under which union members will or will not sell
goods, conduct business, work, employ, or be employed.

3. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK V. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & GENERAL

MAZDOOR UNION
 the plaintiff, an English bank, sought an injunction to prevent the defendants, a union
and its president (who also had a personal dispute with the bank), from holding a
demonstration outside the bank's New Delhi office.
 Despite receiving a threatening letter from the union regarding a planned
demonstration, the court noted that the Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides immunity to
registered trade unions from civil suits related to actions in furtherance of trade
disputes.
 However, the court ruled that this right is not absolute and does not allow
demonstrations within 100 meters of the bank's premises.
 The suit was decreed, restraining the defendants from holding demonstrations within
this restricted area.

Section 20: - inspection of unions books

This section grants office-bearers and members of a registered Trade Union the right to
inspect the union's books of account and the list of members, as per the rules established by
the union.

Section 21: - children as members of trade union

This section allows individuals aged fourteen and above, employed in non-hazardous
industries, to become members of a registered Trade Union. These minors have the same
rights as other members, subject to the union's rules.

Section 21A: - disqualifications for members and office holders

This section outlines the disqualifications for being elected as, or serving as, an office-bearer
or member of the executive of a registered Trade Union. A person is disqualified if they are
under 18 years old, have been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and
sentenced to imprisonment (unless five years have passed since their release), or have been
disqualified by a Tribunal. Additionally, members of the Council of Ministers or those
holding an office of profit (unrelated to the trade union's industry) in the Union or a State
cannot serve as office-bearers of a Trade Union.

Section 22: - adjudication of disputes involving Trade Unions

It specifies that disputes between different Trade Unions, between workers and their Trade
Union regarding registration, administration, management, or election of office-bearers, or
disputes concerning membership or federations of Trade Unions, can be brought before a
Tribunal. The Tribunal with jurisdiction over the area where the Trade Union's registered
office is located will adjudicate such disputes. Civil courts do not have the authority to
entertain suits or proceedings related to these disputes, as this power is exclusively vested in
the Tribunal.

4. IN M. LAKSHMANAN VS ICICI BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

 the court decided whether a retired bank employee, who had been convicted for
dishonoring cheques, could continue as the General Secretary of the ICICI Bank
Employees Union.
 The court ruled that such a conviction is considered an offence involving moral
turpitude, which means it's serious enough to disqualify him from being in that
position.
 Since the employee's conviction was valid and he had been dismissed from his job, he
was not eligible to hold office in the union.
 The court upheld the decision to prevent him from acting as General Secretary and
dismissed the appeals challenging this decision.

Section 23- office bearers in unorganised sector

of the Trade Unions Act requires that at least half of the office-bearers in Trade Unions
connected to the unorganised sector must be actively employed in the relevant industry,
although the government can grant exemptions. For other sectors, the majority of office-
bearers must be employed in the industry, with up to one-third or five office-bearers
allowed to be non-employees. Retired or retrenched employees are not deemed outsiders
for holding office in the Union.

5. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION V. STATE BANK OF INDIA

 the court addressed whether a retired employee elected as the General Secretary
of a bank staff union could represent the union in negotiations with the bank.
 The bank’s policy required that only serving employees could represent the union
in negotiations. This policy had been in place for decades.
  The retired employee who was elected as General Secretary had ceased to be an
ordinary member of the union upon retirement. Since he was not elected as an
honorary member, he did not retain the rights to negotiate with the bank.
 The meeting where the retired employee was elected was held after the
prescribed period and without the registrar's approval. Consequently, the
election was deemed invalid.
 Sections 6 and 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, allow ordinary or temporary
members to be office-bearers but do not guarantee the right to negotiate with
management if the member is no longer employed in the industry.

Section 24 – Change of name, amalgamation, notice of change and its effect

procedures for changing a trade union's name and for amalgamating multiple trade unions. It
requires a two-thirds majority of members' consent for a name change or amalgamation.
Notice of these changes must be sent to the Registrar, and the new name cannot be identical
or similar to that of an existing union. Once registered, the changes are effective from that
date. The change of name or amalgamation does not affect the union's existing rights,
obligations, or ongoing legal proceedings, and amalgamation does not prejudice the rights of
the involved unions or their creditors.

Essential elements of Change of Name of Trade Union

i. Consent 2/3 of the total number of its members

ii. Notice of change of name- Secretary with seven members
iii. Identical name
iv. Change of name effective from the date
v. Effect of change

Essential elements of Amalgamation of Trade Union

i. Method of amalgamation
ii. Notice of amalgamation of name
iii. Secretary with seven members of each and every trade union
iv. Registration of the amalgamated trade union
v. Effect of change

6. BOOTH V. AMALGAMATED MARINE WORKER'S UNION

the House of Lords held that while the registration of a trade union amalgamation is
necessary for its effect, it does not alone validate the amalgamation. An amalgamation
can be declared invalid if the ballot of the constituent unions was irregularly conducted
and failed to secure the required fifty percent of member votes. Consequently, the
validity of the amalgamation hinges on both proper registration and adherence to
procedural requirements, including sufficient voting support.

7. KATHAL R.K. V. REGISTRAR, TRADE UNION AND OTHERS

 the court addressed the jurisdictional limits of the Registrar of Trade Unions under
the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner, a union member, challenged an order by
 the Registrar that stayed the union elections. The court examined whether the
Registrar had the authority to issue such an order.
 The petitioner, as a union member, had the right to challenge the Registrar's order
under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that the Registrar's actions affected his
rights.
 The court found that the Registrar of Trade Unions does not have the power to resolve
election disputes or issue stay orders on elections. The Registrar’s role is
administrative and does not extend to adjudicating internal union disputes.
 The court held that the Registrar acted beyond its jurisdiction by staying the elections.
Disputes over union elections should be resolved by the Industrial Court, not by the
Registrar.
 Since the Registrar’s order was outside the scope of its statutory powers, the order
was invalid and without legal effect.
 The court’s decision emphasized that the Registrar’s functions are limited to those
prescribed by statute and do not include resolving election disputes or issuing
stay orders. Such issues must be addressed by the appropriate judicial forum, namely
the Industrial Court.

Section 25- dissolution of the trade union

When a registered Trade Union is dissolved, notice of the dissolution, signed by seven
members and the secretary, must be sent to the Registrar within fourteen days. The Registrar
will register the dissolution if it complies with the union's rules, and the dissolution will take
effect from the registration date. If the union's rules do not specify how to distribute its funds
upon dissolution, the Registrar will distribute the funds among the members as prescribed by
regulations.

8. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' UNION V. THIRD ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE
 the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's direction for the General Manager of
North Eastern Railway to supervise union elections was incorrect.
 The Registrar of Trade Unions, who is responsible for administering the Trade Unions
Act, should oversee the election.
 The Court directed those elections should be held under the Registrar's supervision or
by a designated officer.
 In a related case, North-Eastern Railway v. Registrar of Trade Unions (1975 IILLJ 396
All), the Court upheld the Registrar's administrative function in registering changes in
union office-bearers, stating that the Registrar was not performing a quasi-judicial
function but an administrative one. The Registrar's role did not require a formal hearing
or cross-examination, and the petitioners could not complain about inadequate
opportunity as they had failed to utilize the provided opportunity to present their case.

9. FATEH SINGH SOLANKI V. RASTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH & ORS

the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the duly elected office bearers of a trade union, sought a
mandatory injunction against the defendants for allegedly fraudulently collecting
union subscriptions and misusing the union's name. The defendants contested the civil
court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, should
handle the dispute.
The court held that the Registrar’s role is administrative, limited to conducting a
summary inquiry to verify and register the office bearers without engaging in quasi-
judicial functions or holding elaborate hearings. Disputes over rival claims of office
bearers are personal matters, not covered by the Trade Unions Act's provisions.
Consequently, such disputes should be adjudicated by the civil court, which has the
appropriate jurisdiction.