Bombay High Court
All India Siemens Employees Union vs Siemens Workers Union And Anr. on 26 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:40949-DB
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
SUNNY
Digitally signed
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THOTE Date: 2025.09.26
15:25:09 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2271 OF 2006
All India Siemens Employees Union,
a Trade Union registered under the
Trade Union's Act, 1926, having its
Office at C/o. Siemens Ltd.,
Kalwe Works, Post Box 85,
Thane Belapur Road, Thane - 400 601. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Siemens Workers Union, a Trade Union
Registered under Trade Union' Act, 1926
having its Office at Gautam Arcade,
Basement No.1, Raut Road,
Near Daulat Nagar, Kopri Village,
Thane (East) - 400 602.
2. Siemens Ltd., a Company registered
under Companies Act, 1956, having its
factory at Kalwe Works, Post Box 85,
Thane-Belapur Road, Thane - 400 601 ...Respondents
None for the Petitioner
Ms. Suvarna Joshi a/w Mr. Ritik Gupta, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Sushant Anaokar i/by Mr. P.N. Anaokar, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:29:16 :::
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
JUDGMENT :
- (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. This matter was admitted by an order dated 5 th April,
2006, which reads as under :-
"1. Rule. Place the matter for interim relief after
notices are served."
2. On 20th July, 2007, this Court observed in its order that
a finding of fact has been recorded by the Industrial Court that
Respondent No.1 has a majority membership. Therefore, interim
relief was refused.
3. On 2nd September, 2025, since the Advocates as well as
the parties were not present, in the Court hall or even through the
VC mode, though the matter was listed under the caption of
'Prioritised Cases', we adjourned the matter to 20 th September 2025,
for passing orders.
4. On 20th September 2025, we had passed the following
order :-
"1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner is not
present in the Court, as well as, through the video
conferencing mode. This Petition is of 2006, which was
adjourned on 2nd September, 2025, with the following
order :-
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
"1. None present for either of the parties.
2. Since this matter is listed under the caption of
'Prioritised Cases, stand over to 20th September,
2025 for passing orders."
2. Today, in the absence of the Petitioner and it's
advocate, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, have declined to argue. We
called upon them to commence their submissions. The
learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted that
she is instructed, but her Vakalatnama is not filed.
3. Such lame excuses, in a matter which is 20 years
old, cannot be countenanced. This matter, already listed
in the prioritised cases list, is repeatedly adjourned.
4. Hence, we would decide the matter by
considering the record before us.
5. Closed for Judgment."
FACTUAL BACK GROUND
5. Respondent No.1, Union (hereinafter referred to as the
Applicant/Union) filed Application (MRTU) no. 21 of 1994, under
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as 'MRTU and 'PULP' Act, 1971), on 8 th August 1994,
before the Industrial Court, seeking a Certificate of Recognized
Union.
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
6. The present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner/Union, which is the Non-Applicant no.1), tendered its
preliminary written statement opposing the application of the
Applicant/Union contending that the Petitioner/Union has majority
membership. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
Application was raised vide the said written statement, dated 16th
September, 1994.
7. Respondent No.2, Company (hereinafter referred as to
the Company) filed its written statement on 16th September, 1994,
adopting a neutral stand. It informed the Court that the
Petitioner/Union represents the staff category. The employees in the
undertaking form a unionized category sub-divided into the staff,
service staff and workmen categories. Further details were set out in
the written statement and it was pointed out that a settlement dated
12th June, 1992 was signed with the Applicant/Union representing
the workmen category. The Petitioner/Union representing the staff
category had signed an agreement dated 4th November, 1992 with
the Company. Further details were set out with regard to the various
establishments and the representation of the workmen and the staff
category. Finally, it was averred that the Industrial Court may
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
examine the claim of the Applicant/Union in the light of the facts
and circumstances narrated in the written statement.
8. The Petitioner/Union then tendered a detailed written
statement in October, 1995, praying that the Applicant/Union had
faced a new election on 23rd April, 1993 and it needs to be
investigated, as to whether the election was legal, valid and proper.
The said election was subject matter of challenge in Application
(ICTU) No.1 of 1994, after a consent certificate was issued and until
the said proceedings are adjudicated upon, the application for
recognition should be kept pending. It was then prayed that the
Petitioner/Union should be granted recognition in the Application
filed by the Applicant/Union, instead of granting recognition to the
Applicant/Union.
9. Under the order of the Industrial Court, the
Investigating Officer ('I.O.') of the Industrial Court, Thane, was
directed to submit an investigation report after verifying the
membership and records of both the Unions. The I.O. informed the
Industrial Court that the verification of the membership record of
the Applicant/Union was complete. However, the Applicant/Union
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
took objection while carrying out the verification of membership of
the Petitioner/Union. By the said report dated 19 th February 1996,
the I.O. prayed for an order from the Industrial Court regarding
verification of membership record of the Petitioner/Union. By an
order dated 22nd March, 1996, the Industrial Court directed the I.O.
to complete the verification exercise within ten days, latest by 10 th
April, 1996.
10. The I.O. tendered a detailed report on 29 th August,
1996. It was stated in the report that they were several common
members, members whose membership had ceased, as well as
invalid members of the Applicant/Union. 1298 employees are
considered as valid members of the Petitioner/Union. For ready
reference, we are reproducing Paragraph No.31 of the report of the
I.O., hereunder :-
"31. After verification of employees of the Applicant
Union and Non-Applicant Union during the relevant
period shown in the list of members submitted by the
applicant and non-applicant union, it is found that
besides common Member s/ ceased members and
invalid members of the applicant union and 1298
employees are considered as valid members of the
Non-applicant union, details are given in Annexure
A,B & C."
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
11. Both the Unions moved applications before the
Industrial Court, questioning the report. An order was passed on 20th
September, 1996 and the Company was directed to provide a
suitable separate cabin to the I.O. to investigate into the common
membership by interrogating the common members personally, in
the absence of the representatives of the Union or the Company. In
pursuance to the said order, in a charged atmosphere wherein there
was a Police Bandobast, the I.O. tried to conduct the interrogation
on 28th September, 1996 at 8:30 p.m. He interrogated 447 members.
He found the majority of such workers to be under great tension,
fear and pressure as some of them have stated that they were
members of both the Unions and while signing the forms, they
requested the I.O. to delete their names from the Petitioner/Union.
Several workers conveyed to the I.O. that they do not intend to be
interrogated. Retired workmen, who were sick and could not walk,
were also named in the common membership list.
12. Finally, the I.O. drew his conclusions after interrogation
of about 447 common members, as under :-
1. 186 Workmen have stated that they were members
of the Applicant Union and paid member-ship
subscription for the relevant period and they have
SUNNY THOTE 7 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
given relevant information, hence, they are treated as
Valid Members of the Applicant Union.
2. 40 workmen have stated tat they were members of
the Non-Applicant Union and paid membership
subscription for the relevant period and they have
given relevant information, hence, they are treated as
Valid Members of the Non Applicant Union.
3. 45 workmen have stated that they were members of
the Applicant Union as well as Non-Applicant Union
and paid membership subscription during the relevant
period.
4. 16 workmen have stated at the begining that they
were members of the Applicant Union as well as Non-
Applicant Union and subsequently, at the time of
signing forms, they have requested to delete the names
of Non-Applicant Union and when asked the reasons,
they have stated that they do not desire to disclose the
membership.
5. 8 workmen have stated that they have retired and
they could not remember regarding the subscription
paid to the Applicant Union, hence, they are treated as
Invalid Members.
6. 2 employees have stated that they were the
members of Non-Applicant Union. However, they could
not remember the subscription amount paid for the
relevant period. Hence, in the absence of relevant
information, they are treated as Invalid Members of the
Non-Applicant Union.
7. 150 Workmen have given only the name of
Applicant Union in the interrogation form, but they
have seated that, they do not remember and not in a
position to tell as to whether they have paid
subscription to the Applicant Union during the relevant
period. Some of them have also stated that they have
paid Rs. 15, Rs. 6 and Rs. 28, hence, in the absence of
SUNNY THOTE 8 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
relevant information regarding membership, they are
treated as Invalid Members.
In view of the previous Report dated 29.8.96
submitted by me and after having interrogated,
Common Members of the Applicant Union and Non-
Applicant Union, the position regarding membership is
as under:
1. Valid Members of the Applicant Union :
1. Originally Valid Members 1112
Total Members : 1298
2. Valid Membership of Non-Applicant Union :
1. Originally Valid Members 1298
Total Members : 1338"
13. Under fresh orders of the Industrial Court dated 10 th
March, 2004, considering the huge controversy between the two
Unions, the Junior Investigating Officer carried out the verification
of the membership of both the Unions in great details. After a
painstaking exercise, he submitted his report (date not mentioned on
the typed copy of the16 Pages report) and drew conclusions below
Paragraph No.7, as under :-
7. Taking into consideration, above calculations
and facts the Applicant Union gained 1170 members
out of 2961 which are working in the N.A. No.1
Company and Non-Applicant Union No.2 gained
1140 members out of 2961. It is to be valid members
of Applicant Union which exams. 39.51 and valid
members of Non-Applicant Union is 38.50". There
are no 1176 members of either of the Unions. The
SUNNY THOTE 9 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
over-laping membership has been ignored as per
Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement cited in 1990 II
CLR page 344, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1597 - 98 of
1988 between Automobile Product of India
Employee's Union V/s. Association of Engg. Workers
(Para 20).
The Non-Applicant Company filed their list of
workers monthwise i.e. for the relevant period Feb.
1994 to July 1994. With consent of the parties, I
decided to verify the membership for the month of
July 1994 which shall be considered for all the six
months i.e. for the relevant period w.e.f. Feb. 1994 to
July 1994. None of the Unions are objected for the
same in orally or writting during the verification.
Hence, the above-said calculations be treated for the
relevant period i.e. Feb.1994 to July 1994.
In the light of above information & facts the
Report is submitted accordingly."
14. Both the parties led exhaustive oral evidence in the
light of the voluminous documents filed. The Industrial Court, after
final arguments were advanced, delivered the impugned Judgment
dated 24th November, 2005. The following issues were cast by the
Industrial Court, as under :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant proves that it YES
is complying with the statutory
conditions provides u/s 11 and 19 of
the MRTU AND PULP ACT, and has
been entitled to get a certificate of
recognition from this Court, as
envisaged under subsection (2) of
section 12 of the MRTU AND PULP
ACT, 1971.
SUNNY THOTE 10 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
2. Whether the non applicant union
proves that it has largest membership NO
of the employees employed by the non
applicant company, in its Kalwa
undertaking and complying with the
provisions u/s 11 and 19, therefore,
becomes entitled to get recognition
certificate as envisaged u/s 12 (3) of
the MRTU & PULP ACT?
3. What order ? Applications
stands allowed
15. The Industrial Court has recorded in its reasons that the
said litigation has been protracted for 11 years. As per Section 11(2)
of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, such an application ideally has
to be decided within three months. It was also recorded by the Court
that rarely such a case occurs when the Petitioner/Union resorted to
launching a 'War of Attrition' against the Applicant/Union. The
rivalry between the two Unions resulted in the abuse of the process
of law, which needs to be deprecated.
16. In such matters, while considering the various
provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, the following
contingencies required for seeking recognition, are to be satisfied.
A] The Applicant/Union should not indulge in resorting to
a strike, which amounts to a deemed illegal strike within six months
SUNNY THOTE 11 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
preceding the month in which the application for recognition is
filed.
B] The membership of the Union should not be less than
30% of the total employees employed in the undertaking for which
the recognition is sought, in the six calender months immediately
preceding the calendar month in which the application is filed.
C] The membership subscription should not be less than
50 paisa per month, the Executive Committee should meet at
intervals not more than three months, all the resolutions passed by
the Executive Committee or by the General Body of the
Applicant/Union should be recorded in a minute book and an
auditor appointed by the State Government should audit its account
at least once in a year.
These requirements are prescribed in Section 19 of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
17. Between the two rival Unions, the Industrial Court has
to find out as to who has a majority of the workmen as its members,
but not below 30% of the total workmen working in the Company.
The Union having the largest majority and which complies with the
requirements under Sections 11 and 19 of the MRTU and PULP Act,
SUNNY THOTE 12 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
1971, can be granted recognition. If a Non-Applicant/Union has
such majority, its claim for recognition could be considered.
18. The Industrial Court has then analyzed the entire oral
and documentary evidence. The claim of the Applicant/Union was
for seeking recognition with reference to the Kalwa Plant. In an
extensive Judgment containing sound reasons and appreciation of
the evidence, the Industrial Court has analyzed the oral and
documentary evidence, threadbare. From Paragraph No.9 onwards
until Paragraph No.41, the Industrial Court has taken great efforts in
analyzing the oral and documentary evidence in the light of the
submissions of the learned Advocates. Even the voluminous record
containing receipt books, membership books, registers, etc., have
been gone into in great depth. It concluded that the Applicant/Union
has more than 30% (i.e. more than 888 members) of the
membership of 2961 employees, the majority membership. The
payment of subscriptions by the workers was also analyzed by the
Industrial Court by adverting to the records pertaining to collection
of subscription of the Union membership.
19. The Industrial Court has also considered the oral
SUNNY THOTE 13 of 14
2-WP-2271-2006-(C).odt
evidence of the witnesses on behalf of both the Unions, in the light
of the documentary evidence placed on record and the contents of
the documents proved in evidence. Having conclusively recorded
that the Applicant/Union has the majority membership over a period
of six months preceding the month in which the application was
filed, the Court concluded that the Applicant Siemens Workers
Union deserves to be granted certificate of recognition with
reference to the undertaking at Kalwa. By the impugned Judgment
dated 24th November, 2005, the Industrial Court granted recognition
to the Applicant/Union.
20. In view of the above and having perused the oral and
documentary evidence analyzed by the Industrial Court in its
extensive Judgment, we do not think that the said Judgment could
be termed as being perverse or erroneous. The conclusions are
supported by sound reasons, which are legal, fair and proper.
21. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 14 of 14
