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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more