Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACULTY OF LAW
PROJECT- ON
SUBMITTED TO
FACULTY OF LAW
D.S.M.N.R.U
SUBMITTED BY
PREETI SINGH
(IX SEMESTER)
DISQUALIFICATION OF OFFICE BEARERS
The following persons are not eligible to be appointed as office bearers or members of the
executive of a registered trade union:
Section 21A(2) gives retrospective effect to the application of the aforesaid clause.
1. As per section 13, upon registration, a trade union becomes a legal entity and as a
consequence, it gets perpetual succession and a corporate seal, it can acquire and hold
movable and immovable property, contract through agents, and can sue and get sued.
2. Under section 15 a registered trade union has a right to establish a general fund.
3. Under section 16, a registered trade union has a right to establish a political fund.
Subscription to this fund is not necessary for a member.
4. Under section 17, 18, and 19 a registered trade union gets immunity in certain
criminal, civil, and contractual proceedings.
5. Under section 24, trade unions have the right to amalgamate.
6. Under section 28-F, the executive of a registered trade union has a right to negotiate
with the employer the matters of employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or the condition of labor of all or any of the members of the trade union
and the employer shall receive and send replies to letters and grant interviews to such
body regarding such matters. It further provides that the executive is entitled to post
notices of the trade union meant for its members at any premises where they are
employed and that the employer shall provide reasonable facilities for that.
2. POLITICAL FUND
(Section 16)
1. Section 17 confers immunity from liability in the case of criminal conspiracy under
section 120-B of IPC, committed by an office bearer or a member. However, this
immunity is partial in the sense that it is available only with respect to the legal
agreements created by the members for the furtherance of valid objects of a trade
union as described in section 15 of the act. The immunity cannot be claimed for an act
that is an offence. Registered Trade Unions have certain rights to do in furtherance of
their trade disputes such as calling for strike, persuading members.
2. In the case of West India Steel Company Ltd. vs Azeez 1990 Kerala, a trade union
leader obstructed work inside the factory for 5 hrs while protesting against the
deputation of a workman to work another section. It was held that while in a factory,
the worker must submit to the instructions given by his superiors. A trade union
leader has no immunity against disobeying the orders. A trade union leader or any
worker does not have any right by law to share managerial responsibilities. A trade
union can espouse the cause of workers through legal ways but officials of a trade
union cannot direct other workers individually or in general about how to do their
work. They do not have the right to ask a worker to stop his work or otherwise
obstruct the work of the establishment. An employer may deal with a person causing
obstruction in work effectively.
3. Section 18 confers immunity from civil proceedings in certain cases to a trade union
or its office bears or members. In general, a person is liable in torts for inducing
another person to breach his contract of employment or for interfering with the trade
or business of another. However, a trade union, its officers, and its members are
immune from this liability provided that such an inducement is in contemplation
or furtherance of a trade dispute. Further, the inducement should be lawful. There is
no immunity against violence, threats, or any other illegal means.
4. In the case of P Mukundan and others vs Mohan Kandy Pavithran 1992 Kerala, it was
held that strike per se is not an actionable wrong. Further, it was held that the trade
union, its officers, and its members are immune against legal proceedings linked with
the strike of workmen by the provisions of section 18.
In the leading case of Rohtas Industries Staff Union vs State of Bihar AIR 1963, it
was held that employers do not have the right to claim damages against the employee
participating in an illegal strike and thereby causing loss of production and business.
In the case of Simpson & Group Companies Workers & Staff Union vs Amco
Batteries Ltd 1992 Karn., it was held that physical obstruction of movement of
management officials, contractors, goods, or vehicles carrying raw materials, is not a
trade union right or a fundamental right under art 19. Immunity under section 18
cannot be claimed for such activities. Right to picket is a very intangible right and it
extends only up to the right of free movement of others. The methods of persuasion
are limited to oral and visual and do not include physical obstruction of vehicles or
persons.
CASE LAWS
Food Corporation of India Worker's Union Vs. Umesh Kumar Gupta (25.10.2002 - DELHI) -
Court Judgment