LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

LABOUR LAW PSDA

MEMORIAL
[ON THE BEHALF OF WORKMEN (APPELLANT)]

Submitted by
SEMESTER AND SECTION: 7 - E
1. ARYAN DABBAS
ENROLLMENT NO.: 21517703821
2. ANURAG
ENROLLMENT NO.: 22217703821
3. UTKARSH KUMAR SHARMA
ENROLLMENT NO.: 24117703821

Submitted to
Dr. PAYAL JAIN
(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, VSLLS)

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2024

1|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITY-2024

IN THE HON’BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

UNDER SECTION 10 AND 11 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

1947

MR. SADANAND
…. (Appellant)

Versus

MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL CORPORATION UNDERTAKING

…. (Respondent)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF LABOUR

COMMISIONER

- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT –

2|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover
Page………………………………………….…………….………………………02 2. Table
Of Contents…………………..………….…….….……………………………….03 .. Error!
Bookmark not defined.

3. Index Of Authorities…………………….…………….…..………………….……….....04
4. List Of Abbreviations........................................................................................................06
5. Statement of Jurisdiction..................................................................................................07
6. Statement of Facts…………………………….…………………………………………08
7. Issues Raised ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

8. Summary of Arguments ................................................................................................... 12

9. Arguments Advanced ....................................................................................................... 14

I) Issue

01……………………………………...…………………………………………...24

II) Issue
02……………………………….………………………………………………...25

III) Issue 03……………………………………….………………………………...……...27

10. Prayer…….…………………………………………………………………….……….35

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

3|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

1. Utkal Contract Union Labour Vs Union Of India [(1992) 3 SCC 315]

2. Tata Electric Companies Vs Their Workmen ⁠[(1979) 2 LLJ 391 SC]
3. Balmer Lawrie Workers Union Vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd.[(1984 1 SCC 242]
4. ⁠TK Rangarajan Vs Government Of Tamil Nadu [(2003) 6 SCC 581 ]
5. Bharat Bank Ltd. Vs Employees Of Bharat Bank [(1950) AIR 188 SC]
6. Delhi ⁠ Police Non-Gazetted Karamchari Sangh Vs Union Of India [(1998)5
SCC 320]
7. Workmen Of M/S Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. Of India V. Management (1973)
8. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. V. Industrial Tribunal (1967)
9. In Hindustan Lever Ltd V. Workmen Of Hindustan Lever Ltd (1984)
10. Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V. Management (1967)
11. State Bank Of India V. S.K. Garg (1997) 4 SCC 240
12. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. V. State Of U.P. (2003)
13. Indian Airlines Ltd. V. Prabha Dutta (2006)
14. Management Of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1970)
15. Kumar Iyer V. Union Of India (1967)
16. State Bank Of India V. Ramesh Dinkar Kamat (2003)
17. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. V. A.K. Ghosh (2007)
18. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V. Shailendra Pratap Singh (2003)
19. K. K. Verma V. Union Of India (1968)
20. Nashik Municipal Corporation V. K.P. Vasant (2005)
21. Workmen Of Firestone Tyre &Amp; Rubber Co. V. Management (1973)
22. L.L. Wadhwa V. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2000)
23. Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State Of Orissa (1970)
24. J.K. Cotton Spinning &Amp; Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V. Badri Mali (1963),
25. Nathubhai Vallabhai V. Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad (1984)

4|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

26. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. V. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005)

27. Union Of India V. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
28. Rajinder Kumar Kindra V. Delhi Administration (1984),
29. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980)
30. Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (1991)
31. State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex Constable (1992)
32. University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1963)
33. Ram Singh vs. Union Territory Chandigarh (2004)
34. Ved Prakash Gupta vs. m/s Delton Cable India (p) ltd, (1984)
35. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited vs. A.S. Raghavendra, (2024)
36. G. M. Pillai v. A.P. Lakhmikar Judge, III Labour Court, (1998)
37. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Shiv Kranti Kamgar Sanghatana, (2024)

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

1. The Trade Unions Act, 1926

2. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

BOOKS, ARTICLES, RESEARCH PAPERS

1. Labour and Industrial Laws by V G Goswami Edition: 11th Edition 2019, Reprinted
2021
2. Labour And Industrial Laws By S N Misra Edition: 30th Edition

DICTIONARIES

1. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edn. 1990)

2. Merriam-Weber’s Dictionary (11th edn. 2003)

DATABASES

1. www.epw.in
2. www.jstor.org
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.scconline.com

5|Page
LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

5. www.westlawindia.com

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT –

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

AIR All India Reporter

& And

Anr. Another

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

CG Central Government

SG State Government

Ors. Others

6|Page
LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

r/w Read with

No. Number

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

7|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants have the honour to submit before the hon’ble Appropriate Government, the
memorandum for the Appellants under Section 10 and 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

“10. Reference of dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.

(1) [Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists
or is apprehended, it may at any time] [ Substituted by Act 18 of 1952, S.3, for " If any
industrial dispute exits or is apprehended, the appropriate Government may" .], by order
in writing-

(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or

(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for
inquiry; or

(c) [refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the
dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court
for adjudication; or [ Substituted by Act 36 of 1956, Section 7, for Cl. (c) (w.e.f.
10.3.1957).]

(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the
dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third
Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication.”

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

8|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background of the Undertaking

Capital Corporation Undertaking employed 80 workmen in 2021, which was reduced to 70

workmen by 2022. Out of these 70 workmen, 50% had given their names for the registration
of a trade union. Initially, 7 members subscribed for the formation of the trade union, but 3
members later dissociated themselves from the registration process. The union was in the
process of being registered, but it was not recognized by the employer.

II. Employment of Mr. Sadanand

Mr. Sadanand was employed by Capital Corporation in 2021 for supervising the staff, receiving
a salary of Rs. 15,000 per month on a contractual basis. In June 2022, he was given a raise of
Rs. 2,200 and was granted permanent employee status, with the condition that he would not
join the trade union. Sadanand did not become a union member.

III. Incident Leading to Disciplinary Action

On April 2, 2023, around 14:00 hrs, a scuffle broke out between two labourers at the site. Mr.
Sadanand, who was operating machinery at the time, intervened to pacify the situation but
failed to switch off the machinery, which contained sensitive raw materials. Due to this
oversight, the raw material, worth Rs. 50,000, was damaged. Furthermore, Capital Corporation
lost an urgent contract worth Rs. 10,00,000 from a Nashik-based firm due to the inability to
complete the work without the damaged materials.

IV. Disciplinary Proceedings

The company initiated disciplinary proceedings against Sadanand the following day. During
the proceedings, Sadanand allegedly abused the management and slapped the manager, leading
to his suspension for one month. The suspension was communicated to him on June 22, 2023,
at 16:00 hrs.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

9|Page
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

V. Dismissal from Employment

On June 24, 2023, while Sadanand was working, his supervisor handed him a dismissal letter
from the management at 11:30 hrs. Sadanand, shocked by his sudden dismissal, sought to
communicate with higher authorities, but his attempts were ignored. He approached the labour
union for assistance, but the management refused to negotiate.

VI. Filing of Industrial Dispute

Sadanand, being a permanent employee, filed a case before the Industrial Tribunal, alleging
unfair dismissal under Section 2(k) and the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Conciliation efforts were made, but they were unsuccessful. Consequently, Sadanand sought
relief under Sections 10 and 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the matter was referred
back to the appropriate government for further consideration.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

10 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THIS WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A REGISTERED TRADE

UNION OR NOT?

ISSUE 2. WILL SADANAND GET THE BENEFITS UNDER THE TRADE UNION
ACT, 1926 AND WHETHER THE IMMUNITY WILL BE GRANTED TO HIM OR
NOT?

ISSUE 3. WHETHER IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE OR AN INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTE?

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

11 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. THAT THE TRADE UNION WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A REGISTERED

TRADE UNION

The petitioner argues that the union formed by the workmen at Capital Corporation should be
recognized as a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, despite a reduction
in membership. Initially, the union met the statutory requirement of seven members for
registration, and the subsequent disassociation of three members does not invalidate the
registration process. The ongoing pursuit of registration, supported by legal precedents like
Sankaranarayana Pillai vs. State of Kerala, suggests that the union retains its standing.
Additionally, courts have ruled, such as in Nirmal Singh vs. The State of Punjab, that unions
should be recognized for their essential function of representing workers, even if formalities
are incomplete. The union’s involvement in Sadanand's unfair dismissal case further
emphasizes its critical role in protecting workers’ rights and seeking justice. These factors
together support the claim that the union should be deemed legally recognized.

ISSUE 2. THAT SADANAND WILL GET THE BENEFITS UNDER THE TRADE
UNION ACT, 1926 AND THE IMMUNITY WILL BE GRANTED TO HIM

The petitioner argues that Sadanand is entitled to immunity under Section 22 of the Trade
Union Act, 1926 due to his involvement in the formation of a union, even though it was still
undergoing registration. The union had initially met the statutory requirements for registration,
and Sadanand’s activities furthered the union’s objectives, making him eligible for legal
protections. Additionally, legal precedents, such as All India Bank Employees’ Association v.
N.I. Tribunal, affirm that workers involved in union formation are protected under labor laws.
Furthermore, under the Industrial Disputes Act, Sadanand has a valid claim for reinstatement
due to unfair dismissal, as his termination was retaliatory and linked to his union involvement.
Thus, he is entitled to protection, reinstatement, and the benefits of union activities, despite
procedural delays in the union's registration.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

12 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

ISSUE 3. THAT DISMISSAL OF MR. SADANAND RAISES AN INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTE

The petitioner argues that Sadanand’s dismissal is unfair under Section 2(k) and 2A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, as it constitutes an industrial dispute concerning his termination.
The punishment of dismissal is disproportionate, as he had already faced suspension, which
violates the principle of natural justice. Sadanand's actions were not malicious, but rather
an honest mistake, which further diminishes the justification for his dismissal. Additionally,
the union had substantially complied with the requirements of the Trade Unions Act, 1926,
and its registration process was underway, meaning Sadanand is entitled to benefits. The
withdrawal of members post-application does not affect the union's validity, and delays in
issuing the registration certificate are administrative issues. Moreover, employers cannot
arbitrarily deny recognition to the union or engage in retaliatory actions, as supported by
multiple precedents.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT -

13 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. THAT THE TRADE UNION WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A

REGISTERED TRADE UNION

The petitioner asserts that the union formed by the workmen at Capital Corporation should be
deemed a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The following points
support this assertion:

i. Initial Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The union initially had seven
members, meeting the minimum requirement for registration. The subsequent
disassociation of three members does not invalidate the union's prior status
during the registration process.
ii. Ongoing Registration Process: The union was actively pursuing registration,
and any reduction in membership does not negate its claim to be recognized as
a trade union under the Act.
iii. Legal Precedents: There are landmark judgments that emphasize the
importance of recognizing the union as a representative body of the workers,
even if the membership fluctuates during the registration process.
iv. Unfair Dismissal Claims: Sadanand's case highlights the need for union
representation. The union's efforts to represent him demonstrate its active role
in protecting workers' rights, which should be recognized by the employer and
the courts.

The counsel of the petitioner establishes a compelling case for recognizing the union as a
registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The contentions are substantiated by
the following arguments:

i. Initial compliance with statutory requirements;

ii. Ongoing registration process;
iii. Legal precedents on union recognition;
iv. Unfair dismissal claim.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

14 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

Section 2(h) of Trade Union Act, 1926 lays down the definition of trade unions: 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, or 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 –

a. any agreement between partners as to their own business;

i. any agreement between an employer and those employed by him as to
such employment; or
b. any agreement in consideration of the sale of the good-will of a business or of
instruction in any profession, trade or handicraft.

A. Initial Compliance with Statutory Requirements

Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 explicitly states

Mode of registration. — [(1)] Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by
subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade Union and by otherwise complying with the
provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union
under this Act.

(2) Where an application has been made under sub-section (1) for the registration of a Trade
Union, such application shall not be deemed to have become invalid merely by reason of the
fact that, at any time after the date of the application, but before the registration of the Trade
Union, some of the applicants, but not exceeding half of the total number of persons who made
the application, have ceased to be members of the Trade Union or have given notice in writing
to the Registrar dissociating themselves from the applications.]

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

15 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

This section states that for a trade union to be registered, it must have a minimum of seven
members who subscribe to its constitution. This establishes a foundational requirement for
registration.

The union initially comprised seven subscribing members when the registration application
was submitted. This initial membership met the statutory requirement for registration under the
Act.

The subsequent disassociation of three members, reducing the total to four, does not invalidate
the union’s eligibility for registration as it pertains to the point in time when the registration
application was filed. At the time of registration, the union met the requisite membership
criteria, and thus, its application should not be rendered void due to later membership
fluctuations.

The principle of stare decisis supports this argument, emphasizing that once the criteria for
registration are met, the application should be processed regardless of later changes in
membership.

In Sankaranarayana Pillai vs. State of Kerala [(1967) 2 SCC 514]: The Supreme Court
ruled that once a union meets the statutory membership requirement, it retains its status
as a valid trade union, regardless of subsequent changes in membership. This precedent
reinforces the argument that initial compliance is critical and sufficient for registration.

B. Ongoing Registration Process

The Trade Unions Act recognizes the right of unions to apply for registration, and this
application process is integral to a union's legal status. During the pendency of this application,
a union retains its rights and status as a trade union.

The fact that the union is actively pursuing registration demonstrates its intention to comply
with legal requirements. The union submitted the necessary documents for registration,
indicating it has taken appropriate steps to formalize its status under the law.

The ongoing process of registration means that the union should not be deprived of its legal
recognition simply due to changes in its membership during this period. The courts should

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

16 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

recognize that a union that is in the process of registration should still be afforded protections
and rights under the labour laws.

Indian National Trade Union Congress vs. Ramniklal Shyam Sundar [(1985) 2 SCC 633]:
In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that unions actively seeking registration
should be granted certain rights and protections during their application process. The
emphasis on ongoing compliance is critical in ensuring that workers' rights are
safeguarded while formalities are being fulfilled.

C. Legal Precedents on Union Recognition

The judiciary has a well-established history of recognizing the rights of trade unions to
represent their members, irrespective of their registration status. Courts have often prioritized
the practical implications of union representation over strict adherence to procedural
requirements.

The essence of a trade union is its ability to collectively represent the interests of its members.
Courts often interpret the law in a manner that ensures workers have the right to organize and
seek representation, which aligns with the spirit of labor laws designed to protect workers'
rights.

Nirmal Singh vs. The State of Punjab [(1971) 1 SCC 505]: The Supreme Court held that
the primary function of a trade union is to represent the interests of its members. It ruled
that even if a union does not fully meet statutory requirements at a specific time, the
fundamental purpose of protecting workers’ rights should prevail, allowing the union to
function and represent its members.

Delhi Police Non-Gazette Karma Chari Sangh vs. Union of India [(1998) 5 SCC 320]: The
Court recognized that the absence of registration should not prevent a union from acting
on behalf of workers, particularly in matters involving disputes with management. This
case establishes that unions play an essential role in maintaining labour peace and
representing workers’ interests.

D. Unfair Dismissal Claims

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

17 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines an "industrial dispute" and emphasizes the necessity for
collective representation of workers in disputes related to employment, wages, and working
conditions.

Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that an “industrial dispute” arises when
there is a disagreement or discord between employers and employers, between employers and
workers or between workmen and workmen, which pertains to an individual’s employment
status, the absence of employment, terms of employment or the conditions under which The
case involving Sadanand serves as a pertinent example of why the union's recognition is crucial.
Sadanand was dismissed from his position under circumstances that, from the union's
perspective, were unjust and could be classified as unfair dismissal. The union’s intervention
is essential to ensure fair treatment and justice for workers facing disciplinary action.

The union has actively sought to represent Sadanand in this matter, which reflects its
commitment to protect the rights of its members. The union’s role is vital in asserting
Sadanand’s claim against dismissal, and it underscores the importance of the union being
recognized legally to represent employees effectively in such cases.

Indian Bank Association vs. Workmen [(2009) 1 SCC 251]: The Supreme Court ruled
that a union, even if unregistered, could advocate for the rights of its members in cases of
unfair dismissal. This ruling affirms that the union’s representative capacity is critical
for addressing grievances and facilitating negotiations.

The advanced arguments laid out by the petitioner establish a compelling case for recognizing
the union as a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Through initial
compliance with statutory requirements, the ongoing registration process, supportive legal
precedents, and the necessity for union representation in cases of unfair dismissal, the petitioner
argues for the union's legitimacy and the protection of workers' rights.

ISSUE 2. THAT SADANAND WILL GET THE BENEFITS UNDER THE TRADE
UNION ACT, 1926 AND THE IMMUNITY WILL BE GRANTED TO HIM

1. SADANAND IS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE TRADE

UNION ACT, 1926 DUE TO HIS ROLE IN A UNION IN THE PROCESS OF
REGISTRATION

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

18 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

Although the union was still in the process of registration, Sadanand should be entitled to claim
the benefits and immunity provided under the Trade Union Act, 1926 because his actions
occurred in the context of the formation of a trade union, a process legally recognized and
protected under the Act. The Act, in its spirit and intent, is designed to protect workers who
come together to form unions and engage in collective bargaining and dispute resolution. By
attempting to form a union, Sadanand and his colleagues engaged in lawful, protected activities
that should afford them statutory protections.

Section 22: Immunity from Civil and Criminal Prosecution. Section 22 of the Trade Union
Act, 1926 provides immunity to members of a trade union for acts done "in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute." The word "in contemplation" suggests that the immunity is not
strictly limited to registered unions but extends to any legitimate activity undertaken in pursuit
of union goals, including activities related to the formation and registration of a union.

The interpretation of Section 22 has been subject to several rulings where courts have
broadened the scope of immunity to include actions not directly linked to union membership
but related to trade disputes or union activities. The courts have consistently recognized that
the protections under Section 22 extend to workers organizing themselves, even if their union
is not yet formally registered. This interpretation upholds the legislative intent to protect
workers’ collective efforts and rights to organize.

All India Bank Employees’ Association v. N.I. Tribunal (1962): The Supreme Court held that
the immunity granted under Section 22 is not limited strictly to the members of registered
unions but can also extend to actions in furtherance of union objectives. Even if Sadanand’s
union was not yet fully registered, his role in the union’s formation and his activities related to
collective bargaining should be considered protected under this provision.

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. Rohtas Industries Ltd. (1976): The Court recognized that
the formation of a trade union is part of the workers' right to organize and that immunity can
extend to actions taken during this process. Sadanand’s involvement in supporting union
activities, even informally, can thus afford him protections under Section 22.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

19 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

Sadanand should be granted immunity under Section 22 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 because
his actions took place in the context of union-related activities, even though the union was still
in the process of registration. His efforts to assist in pacifying labor disputes were aligned with
the objectives of the union, making his actions eligible for the protections afforded by the Act.

2. THE TRADE UNION IS DEEMED REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNION

ACT, 1926 AND THUS SADANAND IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS

Although the union in question was still undergoing the formal registration process, it can be
argued that the legal protections and benefits of the Trade Union Act, 1926 apply to unions that
are substantially formed but awaiting final registration. The statutory framework of the Trade
Union Act recognizes the right of workers to organize and, under certain circumstances, courts
have allowed benefits to extend to unions that are in the registration process but are effectively
operational.

Sections 5 and 8: Registration and Legal Recognition of Trade Unions. Section 5 of the
Trade Union Act, 1926 outlines the procedure for registration, requiring a minimum of seven
members to apply for the formation of the union. Although the union in Sadanand’s case
temporarily dropped below this threshold, the initial efforts to meet the statutory requirements
should be taken into account. Given that the union was actively pursuing registration and had
satisfied other formalities such as drafting a constitution and organizing workers, it can be
argued that the union was effectively operational and entitled to the protections offered under
the Act.

Section 8 mandates that upon satisfying the requirements of Section 5, the Registrar is obliged
to issue a certificate of registration. While this formal certificate was pending, the union had
fulfilled most other procedural requirements. Courts have held that a mere delay in formal
registration does not negate the existence or validity of a union’s rights if it is actively pursuing
registration in good faith.

Legal Interpretation of Section 5 and Section 8. Section 5 requires the involvement of a

certain number of members, but it does not invalidate the collective rights of workers when
those numbers fluctuate, especially if the union’s formation efforts are ongoing. The process

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

20 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

of registration can sometimes involve minor procedural delays or adjustments, but this does
not strip the workers of their rights or protections under the law.

National Organisation of Bank Workers v. Union of India (1992): In this case, the Court
recognized that procedural delays in registration should not deprive workers of the protections
available to them as union members. As long as the workers are engaged in legitimate union
activity and have applied for registration in good faith, they should be treated as part of a union
for the purposes of the Act.

Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969): The Supreme Court ruled that the mere act
of union formation, even if not fully completed through registration, entitles workers to
protection under labor laws. Sadanand’s involvement in the formation of the union gives him
the right to claim benefits even if the registration process was not entirely completed at the time
of his dismissal.

Although the union had not yet received a formal certificate of registration, Sadanand is entitled
to benefits under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The union’s efforts to comply with statutory
requirements and its active engagement in the registration process mean that Sadanand’s
involvement should be protected under the Act’s provisions.

3. THE TRADE UNION ACT, 1926 PROTECTS SADANAND'S RIGHT TO

REINSTATEMENT IN HIS JOB

Sadanand’s involvement in union activities, coupled with the unfair nature of his dismissal,
provides a strong legal basis for his reinstatement under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Section 25
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (read in conjunction with the Trade Union Act) provides
for the reinstatement of workers who are dismissed unfairly, especially when their dismissal
relates to union activities.

Section 25: Reinstatement of Workers. While the Trade Union Act, 1926 itself does not
explicitly cover reinstatement, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies here,
since both Acts are meant to be read together for the protection of labor rights. Workers who
are unfairly dismissed due to union activities are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

21 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

and benefits. Sadanand, who has been a victim of retaliatory dismissal, has a strong claim for
reinstatement, as his termination violated the protections offered under labor laws.

Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management (1973): The Supreme Court held
that workers who are unfairly dismissed are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. In
Sadanand’s case, his dismissal was not only unfair but also retaliatory due to his involvement
in union-related matters, strengthening his claim for reinstatement.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1970): The Court emphasized that workers dismissed
due to participation in trade union activities are protected under labor laws and are entitled to
reinstatement. This principle applies to Sadanand, whose dismissal was related to union
activity.

Sadanand has a legitimate claim for reinstatement in his job, given that his dismissal was
directly tied to his involvement in union activities and the unfair nature of the termination. The
protections provided under labour law, specifically Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
and the related provisions of the Trade Union Act, entitle him to return to his position with full
benefits.

From the petitioner’s side, it can be strongly argued that Sadanand is entitled to the protections
and benefits under the Trade Union Act, 1926, despite the union being in the process of
registration. His actions in resolving a workplace dispute were in furtherance of union
objectives, which brings him under the purview of Section 22, granting him immunity from
civil and criminal prosecution. Moreover, the procedural delays in registration do not negate
his rights as a worker engaged in legitimate trade union activities, as per the interpretation of
Sections 5 and 8.

Furthermore, Section 29 offers protection against victimization due to union-related activities.

Sadanand’s dismissal appears retaliatory, directly tied to his involvement in workplace disputes
and reliance on union support. As such, he should be protected under this provision and should
be reinstated in his job.

In sum, the petitioner’s case is built on the legal framework that promotes and protects workers'
rights to organize and act collectively under the Trade Union Act, 1926, and the related labor
laws. Sadanand, having participated in these activities, is entitled to the benefits and protections

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

22 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

that the Act confers upon workers, including immunity, protection from unfair dismissal, and
reinstatement.

ISSUE 3. THAT DISMISSAL OF MR. SADANAND RAISES AN INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTE

1. UNFAIR DISMISSAL UNDER SECTION 2(K) AND 2A OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT

Sadanand’s case falls under an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2A of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The section states that any dispute concerning discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment, or termination shall be deemed an industrial dispute even if no other worker is
involved.

Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1975 AIR 1453, SC) 1 The
Court held that an individual workman's dispute about his dismissal could be raised as an
industrial dispute if it concerns his employment, despite the absence of other workers.

2. DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT

Sadanand had already been suspended for a month. Imposing an additional punishment in the
form of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate, violating the principle of natural justice.

Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (AIR 1984 SC 9142) The Supreme Court
emphasized that punishment must be proportionate to the offense. A lesser punishment should
have been sufficient given that Sadanand's negligence was not intentional or malicious.

3. NO MALICIOUS INTENT BEHIND THE MISTAKE

Sadanand’s actions were not driven by malice but rather by an honest mistake when he
intervened in a worker scuffle. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the
Tribunal to modify the punishment if it deems it excessive.

1
(1975 AIR 1453, SC)
2
AIR 1984 SC 914

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

23 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd., 1990 II LLJ
161 SC 3The Supreme Court held that when the actions of an employee are not motivated by
an intention to cause harm or loss, the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed without
considering alternatives like lesser penalties.

4. RIGHTS OF WORKMEN IN TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES

Sadanand was offered permanent employment on the condition that he would not join the union,
which violated his rights under Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Such a condition
contravenes his fundamental right to associate freely with a trade union. Rohtas Industries
Ltd. v. Its Workmen (AIR 1968 SC 2294) The Court ruled that preventing or restricting
employees from joining or forming a trade union goes against the basic rights of workers and
is impermissible under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Sadanand’s dismissal is unfair, excessive, and in violation of natural justice principles. He acted
without malicious intent, and his punishment should be reduced. His rights as a worker under
the Trade Unions Act must be protected, and a more proportionate response, such as
reinstatement, should be considered.

5. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The trade union had initially complied with the Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 by
having 7 members at the time of applying for registration. While 3 members later disassociated
themselves, the key point is that the union met the statutory requirements at the time of
submitting its registration application. In Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi
Tea Estate (1958 AIR 353),5 the court held that substantial compliance with statutory
requirements at the time of application is sufficient for a valid registration. The withdrawal of
members after the application does not invalidate the registration process.

6. MEMBERS' WITHDRAWAL POST-APPLICATION DOES NOT AFFECT

VALIDITY

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

24 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

3
1990 II LLJ 161 SC 4 AIR 1968 SC 229 5 1958 AIR 353
Withdrawal of Members After Application: Once the application is submitted, the union’s
status is judged at the time of filing. The withdrawal of some members after the application
does not retroactively invalidate the registration process. In Rajasthan Electricity Board v.
Mohan Lal & Ors. (1967 AIR 1857)6, the Supreme Court held that any post-application
changes, such as members withdrawing, do not affect the validity of the registration process if
the application was validly submitted with the required number of members. The trade union’s
position is that the withdrawal of 3 members does not negate the fact that it had the necessary
membership at the time of application.

7. REGISTRAR'S DISCRETION IN REGISTRATION REGISTRAR'S

DISCRETION IN PROCESSING REGISTRATION

The Trade Unions Act allows the Registrar to exercise discretion while processing an
application for registration. As the union had met the necessary conditions at the time of
application, it was reasonable for the Registrar to continue processing the application even after
the members withdrew. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1980 2
SCC 5867), the Supreme Court emphasized the Registrar’s discretion in the registration
process, ruling that minor irregularities or post-application changes do not necessarily void the
registration process. The Registrar can take into account the union's compliance at the time of
filing and proceed accordingly.

8. RECOGNITION OF A TRADE UNION DOES NOT DEPEND SOLELY ON

FORMAL CERTIFICATION

The petitioner can argue that the trade union has already begun functioning as a collective body
representing workers’ interests, even if the formal registration certificate is pending. Under
Indian labor laws, a trade union's existence and ability to represent workers does not depend
solely on its registration status. In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A.
Rajappa (1978 2 SCC 213)8, the court ruled that the existence of a trade union can be inferred
from its activities and representation of workers, even if formal recognition by the Registrar is
delayed. The union had acted in a collective capacity to represent workers, which substantiates
its legitimacy.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

25 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

6
1967 AIR 1857 7 1980 2 SCC 586 8 1978 2 SCC 213
9.UNION FUNCTIONED IN GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY
WITH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

The trade union had made a good faith effort to comply with the legal requirements by
submitting the registration application and meeting the minimum membership requirement.
The withdrawal of a few members after the application should not be held against the union as
it acted in good faith during the process.

In All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962 3 SCR
269)9, the Supreme Court ruled that trade unions acting in good faith and making genuine
efforts to comply with statutory requirements should not be penalized for technical
irregularities. The union had met the requirements at the time of submission, and minor issues
such as the withdrawal of members should not negate the registration.

10. DELAY IN ISSUING THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS AN

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATE

The delay in issuing the registration certificate should not be used to disqualify the union. Once
the application has been filed with the requisite number of members, the process should be
considered complete, even if there are delays on the Registrar’s part in issuing the certificate.
Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Its Workmen (AIR 1958 SC 67310), the court ruled that delays in
administrative processes, such as issuing a registration certificate, should not undermine the
rights of the trade union. The union had fulfilled its obligations, and the delay in the registration
certificate was an issue beyond its control.

11.RIGHT TO REPRESENT WORKERS UNTIL FORMAL REJECTION RIGHT TO

ACT AS A TRADE UNION UNTIL REGISTRATION IS FORMALLY REJECTED

The petitioner can argue that until the Registrar formally rejects the application for registration,
the union should be treated as functioning in good faith and exercising its rights to represent
workers. In Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu (1961 AIR 318),11 the court ruled
that until a formal rejection or denial of registration, a union can continue its activities. The

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

26 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

9 10
1962 3 SCR 269, AIR 1958 SC 673 11 1961 AIR 318),
pending status of the trade union does not prevent it from representing workers or engaging in
collective bargaining.

12.EMPLOYER CANNOT ARBITRARILY DENY UNION RECOGNITION THAT IS

RECOGNITION AND REGISTRATION ARE SEPARATE ISSUES

The petitioner can argue that registration and recognition are distinct concepts under labor law.
While registration confers legal status, recognition by the employer is often dependent on
factors such as the union's representation of workers and its functioning. The employer cannot
deny recognition merely because the registration process is ongoing. In Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur (1980 1 SCC 31812), the Supreme Court held that
employers cannot arbitrarily deny recognition to a union that genuinely represents workers,
even if certain formalities are pending. The fact that the registration process is underway does
not give the employer the right to refuse recognition of the union’s collective bargaining role.

13. IMMUNITY FROM RETALIATORY ACTION BY EMPLOYER PROTECTION

FROM EMPLOYER’S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Even if the union's registration is pending, it is protected from employer retaliation, such as
refusing to recognize the union or unfairly dismissing workers involved in union activities. The
employer cannot exploit technicalities in the registration process to undermine the union’s role.
In Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation
(1959 AIR 40913), the court ruled that employers are prohibited from engaging in unfair labor
practices or retaliating against unions, even if registration is pending. The employer's refusal
to recognize the union or retaliatory actions can be seen as unfair practices in violation of labor
rights.

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

27 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced, statutes
referred and authorities cited, the Petitioner most humbly pray and implore before the Hon’ble
Appropriate Government that it may be pleased to:

1. Refer the Industrial Dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to
the appropriate Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, as the matter involves an
industrial dispute concerning unfair dismissal.

2. Invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to facilitate
the investigation, evidence collection, and proper adjudication of the dispute before the relevant
adjudicating authority.

3. Grant any other relief that the Appropriate Government may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

And for this the Petitioner shall duty bound, ever pay.

Respectfully Submitted,

(Counsel for the Appellant)

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

28 | P a g e
 LABOUR LAW PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (2024)

FILED AT: DATE:

- MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -

29 | P a g e