* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th February, 2014.
+ CS(OS) 348/2004 & I.A. No.692/2014 (of D-1 for dismissal of suit)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
WORKERS UNION .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajiv Talwar and Mr. Nipu
Patiri, Advocates.
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (HANDLING)
WORKERS UNION & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bahl, Mr. Chandan
Kumar and Mr. Eklavya Bahl,
Advocates for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.
The plaintiff Union has instituted this suit, (i) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 Union, its office bearers and members from using or carrying on trade union activities under the name of "Food Corporation of India (Handling) Workers Union" and using the logo as appearing in its Letter Heads; and, (ii) for declaration, declaring the registration of the defendant No.1 Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as nullity, being in violation of Section 7 of the said Act.
2. The suit was entertained.
3. On application of the plaintiff Union for interim relief, vide consent CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 1 of 8 order dated 3rd December, 2007, it was ordered that the defendant No.1 Union shall change its name to "FCI Handling-Workers Union". The counsel for the defendant No.1 Union informs that the defendant No.1 Union has since been using the said name, though has not registered the said changed name with the Registrar of Trade Unions.
4. Though issues have been framed in the suit and trial has commenced but the matter was listed before this Court yesterday on the application of the defendant No.1 Union for dismissal of suit on the ground that the members of the plaintiff Union had passed a resolution for dissolution of the plaintiff Union; that the same was accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions who revoked the registration of the plaintiff Union; the defendant No.1 Union had earlier applied for dismissal of the suit on this ground but the said application was not pressed as the plaintiff Union had filed a civil suit challenging the revocation of its registration and in which an interim stay of the order of the Registrar of revocation of registration of the plaintiff Union had been granted; that the said interim order has since been vacated and the appeals thereagainst have been dismissed.
5. However, when the matter came up yesterday, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff Union as to how the plaintiff Union could CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 2 of 8 restrain another Union, also of the workers of Food Corporation of India, from calling itself a Union of the Workers of Food Corporation of India and as to how the plaintiff Union can be said to have proprietary rights over the words "Food Corporation of India" or its workers' union.
6. On request of counsels for parties, the matter was adjourned for consideration on this aspect to today.
7. The counsel for the plaintiff Union has today contended that the right of the plaintiff Union to restrain the defendant No.1 Union from using the same name as the plaintiff Union stems from Section 7 of the Trade Union Act. It is further contended that the defendant No.1 Union, to obtain registration, filed an undertaking before the Registrar to the effect that there was no other Union of the same name and which undertaking is apparently false. The counsel further invites attention to Sections 10 & 11 of the said Act, which provide for cancellation of registration and appeals against the order of the Registrar. The counsel, on enquiry, informs that the only effect of non-registration of a Trade Union is that it does not have collective bargaining power with the Management.
8. Having gone through the provisions of Sections 7, 10 & 11 supra, it has further been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff Union, whether CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 3 of 8 the plaintiff Union applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 10(b) of the Act for cancellation of the registration in favour of the defendant No.1 Union on the ground of the defendant No.1 Union having obtained the registration by filing a false undertaking to the effect that there was no other Trade Union by the said name and if the plaintiff Union has not done so, how the plaintiff Union can file this suit impugning the decision of the Registrar of registration of the defendant No.1 Union, particularly when an appeal is also provided under Section 11 of the Act against the orders of the Registrar and which appears to be a complete code.
9. The counsel for the plaintiff Union in this regard has drawn attention to Sections 20 & 22 of The Companies Act, 1956 to contend that the same are pari materia to the provisions aforesaid of the Trade Unions Act and in the context of the same, the Division Bench of this Court in Montari Overseas Ltd. Vs. Montari Industries Ltd. 1996 PTC (16) 142 has held that a suit before a Civil Court is not barred owing to the existence of a remedy under Section 22 of the Companies Act. The counsel thus contends that this Court would have jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy.
10. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment, in the context of intellectual CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 4 of 8 property rights, would have no application to Trade Unions, which the counsel for the plaintiff Union also accepts do not have any trademark or right as the intellectual property right in an entity carrying on business. Rather, as aforesaid, the Trade Unions Act is a complete code in itself and thus the provisions thereof cannot be compared with the provisions of The Companies Act and/or the intellectual property rights of an entity carrying on business.
11. Section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act defines a Trade Union as a combination 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. Section 15 of the said Act prohibits the funds of a registered Trade Union being spent on any other objects than those mentioned therein. As per Clause (c) thereunder, the funds of the Trade Union can be spent in a legal proceeding only if the said legal proceeding is undertaken for the purpose of securing or protecting any rights of the Trade Union as such or any rights arising out of the relations of any member with his employer or with a person whom the member employs.
12. This Court in Kedar Nath Gupta Vs. J.K. Organization CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 5 of 8 MANU/DE/0473/1998, including on an interpretation of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, held that a Trade Union is not competent to oppose an application for registration of a trademark. The reason given was that Trade Unions are subject to specific legislation i.e. the Trade Unions Act and their activities are to be modulated by the said legislation and Trade Unions cannot indulge in anything which is repugnant to the Trade Unions Act. On an interpretation of Section 15 supra, it was held that Trade Unions are entitled to pursue prosecution or defence in legal proceedings undertaken only for the purposes mentioned in Clause (c) or Clause (d) of Section 15. It was held that a Trade Union not concerned with one trade is not entitled to prosecution or defence of Trade Mark matters of another trade as a Trade Union is supposed to act within the limitations and constraints of the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Union was thus held not entitled to oppose the trade mark registration.
13. Thus, the judgment in Montari Overseas Ltd. supra, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for restraining a company incorporated under the Companies Act from using the name in which it has been incorporated is not barred inspite of the alternate remedy available under Section 22 of the Companies Act of applying for rectification of the CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 6 of 8 name of the defendant company, for the reason of the plaintiff having a common law remedy to protect its trade name, is not applicable to a Trade Union which has no rights as aforesaid in a trade name and which does not carry on any trade.
14. The counsel for the plaintiff Union has also drawn attention to All India Trade Union Congress Vs. Dy. Registrar of Trade Unions 2006 II Current Labour Report 181. However, what was for consideration before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the said judgment, was a writ petition against the order of the Registrar. The said judgment also would thus have no application.
15. Even otherwise, once the Legislature has provided an alternative remedy, the provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which bar the grant of an injunction in such cases, would also come into play. I am even otherwise of the opinion that the Registrar in the first instance is the best person to deal with the said matters.
16. The counsel for the plaintiff Union at this stage states that the plaintiff Union be granted liberty to approach the Registrar under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act.
17. The counsel for the defendant No.1 Union on enquiry states that the CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 7 of 8 defendant No.1 Union, notwithstanding the disposal of the present suit, would continue using the name as agreed earlier i.e. "FCI Handling- Workers Union" and will not revert to the original name and will also within one month, make an application to the Registrar of Trade Unions for changing the registration in the said name.
18. The suit is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty however to the plaintiff Union to take remedies under Section 10(b) of the Act and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
19. The counsel for the plaintiff Union states that the plaintiff Union will make such an application within one month hereof.
20. Needless to state, that the Registrar is expected to deal with the same expeditiously. Needless to further state, that the defendant No.1 Union shall be entitled to contest such an application on all grounds available to it.
21. In view of the dismissal of the suit, the date of 21st February, 2014 before the Joint Registrar stands cancelled.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 18, 2014 bs..
CS(OS) No.348/2004 Page 8 of 8