Skip to main content

Trade union can't include staff of separated firm


When one unit of a group of companies separates itself to form an independent firm, the trade union of the original group can not keep the employees of the new firm on its rolls. The bye-laws of the union can not be amended to allow erstwhile employees of the group to continue as members, even if they pay subscription fees, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, All Escorts Employees’ Union vs State of Haryana. The Escorts group originally included Escorts Ltd, Escorts Yamaha Ltd (a joint venture), Escorts JCB Ltd, Escorts Class Ltd and Escorts Hospital. In 2001, the two-wheeler manufacturer Yamaha segregated and formed a separate company, which was an Indian subsidiary of the Japanese parent. Escorts stopped making twowheelers. The trade union tried to attract the erstwhile employees of the Yamaha unit by changing the bye-laws. The registrar of the trade union did not allow it. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the registrar’s decision. The union came up on appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that its membership was open to any one who wanted to join it and every worker has a con stitutional right to do so. The court rejected the arguments of the union and stated that various provisions of the Trade Union Act implicitly con fined the membership to those who are work men of the industry where they are employed. More over, in this particular case, Yamaha employees have formed their own union which was registered in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more