WP(C)/5237/2013
2025 Latest Caselaw 557 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/5237/2013 on 15 May, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                     Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010010522013




                                                              2025:GAU-AS:6034

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              WP(C) 5237/2013


          M/s. Down Town Hospital Ltd.,
          A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
          Having its registered office at G.S. Road, Guwahati-6,
          Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director



                                                  ...........Petitioner.

                                 -Versus-

          1. The State of Assam,
             Represented by Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour
             and Employment Department.


          2. The Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati-16


          3. The Presiding Officer,
             Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati,
             Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup,
             (Metro), Panbazar, Guwahati-1


          4. Shri Tilak Dutta,
             S/O- Late Hareswar Dutta,
                                                                       Page No.# 2/5

                 Resident of Lakhinagar, Khanapara,
                 House No. 51, Guwahati-22


              5. Down Town Hospitals Ltd. Employees Union,
                 K.C. Sen Road, Paltan Bazar,
                 Guwahati-08, Represented by its General Secretary.



                                                         ......Respondents.

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

For the petitioner : Mr. N Deka, .... Advocate

For the respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. K Gogoi .... Advocate

Date of hearing & Judgment : 15.05.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. It is also seen that newspaper publication had been made in respect of respondent No. 5. Further the Lawazima Court order dated 21.08.2024 states that service in respect of respondent No. 5 has been completed.

Page No.# 3/5

3. The matter relates to an order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 2/2011, by which it has been held that an unregistered trade union can represent its members, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731(2). The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 thus held that the Reference Case No. 2/2011 was maintainable.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that a perusal of Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), clearly shows that the learned Tribunal has completely misread the provisions of Section 2(qq) of the Act, inasmuch as, an unregistered Trade Union cannot represent it's members.

5. Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also submits that the learned Tribunal has made a mistake in coming to a finding that an unregistered trade union can espouse the cause of a employee of the trade union, in view of Section 2(qq) of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above.

6. Section 2(qq) of the Act states as follows:-

"Trade union" means a trade union registered under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926"

7. Further para 37 of the judgment in B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra) states as follows:-

Page No.# 4/5

"37. We shall now advert to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act with reference to the registration of Trade Unions. Section 2(q)(q) defines trade union which means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926). Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 says that the workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Act by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member or by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade unions referred to in clause A is affiliated. The writ petitioner union made a false averment that it is a registered trade union that itself, in our opinion, is a ground to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petitioner has made an averment to the following effect in its writ petition which is also reflected in the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition which runs thus:

"The petitioner is a registered Trade Union of employees of 2nd respondent Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') constituted under the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')."

8. A perusal of Section 2(qq) of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly goes to show that it is only a registered trade union, who can espouse the cause of a member of the trade union and as the Down Town Hospital Limited Employees Union is not a registered trade union, it cannot espouse the cause of the respondent No. 4. As such, the finding of the learned Page No.# 5/5

Tribunal in the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 is not sustainable. The order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 2/2011 is accordingly set aside.

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant