Allowed

M/S Down Town Hospital Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 May 2025WP(C)/5237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an Industrial Tribunal order holding that an unregistered trade union could represent its members. Relying on Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that only registered trade unions can espouse the cause of employees.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 2/2011 was set aside.

M/S Down Town Hospital Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010010522013

2025:GAU-AS:6034

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

¶5

WP(C) 5237/2013

¶6

M/s. Down Town Hospital Ltd.,

¶7

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

¶8

……….. Petitioner.

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The State of Assam,

¶11

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

¶12

The Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati-16

¶13

The Presiding Officer,

¶14

Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati,

¶15

Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup,

¶16

(Metro), Panbazar, Guwahati-1

¶17

Shri Tilak Dutta,

¶18

S/O- Late Hareswar Dutta,

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

…… Respondents.

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶25

For the petitioner : Mr. N Deka, .... Advocate For the respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. K Gogoi .... Advocate Date of hearing & Judgment : 15.05.2025

¶26

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Page No.# 3/5

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

“Trade union” means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926”

¶35

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

¶36

Page No.# 4/5

¶37

“37. We shall now advert to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Actwith 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 36of 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:

¶38

"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')."

¶39

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

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

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.

¶42

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

M/S Down Town Hospital Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Down Town Hospital Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paban Hazarika Vs Prasanta Borkakati

Mahmudul Islam Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 Ors.

Sudhang Kumar Brahma Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and Anr.

M/S Vardan Associates Private Limited Vs Numaligarh Refinery Limited and 7 Ors.

Urrunaband Tea Estate Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Shri Sailen Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.