Dismissed

James Robson v. The Labour Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jul 2021WP/15094/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a union's waging deduction. It held that Section 18 does not bar civil suits for illegal non-dispute deductions and parties must first exhaust remedies before the Registrar or appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with the observation that petitioners must exhaust remedies before the appropriate forum regarding the illegal deduction.

James Robson Vs The Labour Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.15094 of 2020

¶6

James Robson 2. T.Sigymool ... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The Labour Commissioner, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶8

The Additional Registrar of Trade Union No.1 cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour No.1, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶9

South Indian Cine, Television Artistes and Dubbing Artistes Union, rep. by its General Secretary, No.10, 4^th Street, Vijayaraghavapuram, Saligrammam, Chennai 600 093.

¶10

Tamil Film Producers Council, represented by its President, No.606, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of impugned proceedings in A3/7616/14, dated 23.12.2014 passed by the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to declare that, the collection of wages of the members of the 3^rd Respondent Union directly from the 4^th Respondent and compulsorily deducting 10% illegally from the wages of the members by the 3^rd Respondent is unconstitutional, ultravires and void ab initio.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Veeraraghavan

¶14

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.V.R.R.Elamparithi, Government Advocate For 3^rd Respondent : Col.Dr.Edwin Jesudoss For 4^th Respondent : No appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned proceedings in A3/7616/14, dated 23.12.2014 passed by the 2^nd Respondent and for a consequential direction to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to declare that, the collection of wages of the members of the 3^rd Respondent Union directly from the 4^th Respondent and compulsorily deducting 10% from the wages of the members by the 3^rd Respondent Union, illegally, is unconstitutional, ultravires and void ab initio.

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioners is that, 10% of the amount has been deducted from the wages payable to the members of the 3^rd Respondent Union and that, the Union has no locus to deduct any amount from the wages of its members.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, even though a Resolution has been passed as early as in 2006, there is interpolation as could be seen in page No.9 of the typed set of papers filed by the 3^rd Respondent. Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:

¶19

“,e;jg; nguit Kjy; ek;Kila a{dpad; cWg;gpdh;fspd; Cjpak; a{dpad; K:ykhf tH';fg;gLk;/ mjpy; 5% ntiytha;g;g[ bgw;Wj;jUk; Fuy; xU';fpizg;ghsh;fSf;F. 5% a{dpad; tsh;r;rp epjpahft[k; vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd;Wk; jiyth; mth;fs; Twpdhh;/ nguit Vfkdjhf xg;g[jy; mspj;jJ/ ”

¶20

It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, in terms of Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, there is immunity from Civil Suit in certain cases of the Trade Union and hence, members of the Union cannot approach the Civil Court. According to him, the 2^nd Respondent herein has not exercised the power contemplated under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and that, he has the right to inspect the books of the Trade Union.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Though, it has been brought to the attention of this Court that, there are several matters pending and Contempt Petition has been closed, this Court is not inclined to decide the issue in the present Writ Petition. For the sake of convenience, Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 is extracted below:

¶24

Immunity from civil suit in certain cases.—

¶25

(1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any Civil Court against any registered Trade Union or any 1[office-bearer] or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills.

¶26

(2) A registered Trade Union shall not be liable in any suit or other legal proceeding in any Civil Court in respect of any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute by an agent of the Trade Union if it is proved that such person acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to express instructions given by, the executive of the Trade Union.

¶27

It is seen that, the first Petitioner herein, viz. James Robson has signed the Resolution on 28.09.2006 and it appears that, he was agreeable to the same. This Court cannot go into the question as to whether there was any interpolation or not with regard to 10% deduction in the wages. As per Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, it is clear that, only with regard to certain disputes, legal proceedings are not maintainable in the Civil Court. In case, Petitioners are aggrieved that, there is illegal deduction, certainly, it is not with regard to the furtherance of a trade dispute and Civil Suit is maintainable.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

In the case on hand, the Authority concerned has rightly decided the issue that, his role under the Trade Union Act is very limited and that, he cannot go into the question of various issues raised by the Petitioners by conducting any enquiry or roving enquiry. Hence, this Court is of the view that, an opportunity has to be given to the Petitioners to agitate their remedy before the appropriate forum, as, certainly, this Court and the Registrar of Trade Union cannot decide the issue. Firstly, this Court cannot go into the disputed question of fact and secondly, the Registrar of the Trade Union has got very limited powers and he has to confine his role in terms of the Trade Union Act.

¶30

In view of the foregoing, this Court makes it clear that, there is no bar for the Civil Court to decide the issue raised by the Petitioners herein, as Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, cannot be put against the Petitioners.

¶31

The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.18819 to 18822 of 2020 are closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

(aeb)

¶36

To:

¶37

The Labour Commissioner, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶38

The Additional Registrar of Trade Union No.1 cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour No.1, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

W.P.No.15094 of 2020

CD (CO)

PR (27/09/2021)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

James Robson v. The Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Robson v. The Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Rohini Mills Vs the Presiding Officer

M/s.Hotel Saravana Bhavan Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

Workmen of Automotive Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Puthiya Jananayaga Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Plr Textiles Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Chief Conservator of Forests, Vs P.Pachayapillai