NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12843-12844 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 27020-27021 OF 2015)

ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.     

2) The  appellant-Union,  known  as  All  Escorts  Employees  Union,

was formed way back in the year 1968.  It is a registered Trade

Union which was representing the employees of Escorts Group of

Industries  and  is  duly  recognised  by  the  employers  as  well.

Some of the Establishments of Escorts Group were Escorts Ltd.,

Escorts Yamaha Ltd., Escorts JCB Ltd., Escorts Class Ltd. and

Escorts Hospital.  It is an undisputed fact that the workmen from

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 1 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

all these industries were members of the appellant-Union.  As far

as Escorts Yamaha Ltd. is concerned, it  was a joint venture of

Escorts Management and Yamaha Motor Company, Japan.  In

the year 2001, this company was taken over by Yamaha Motor

Company, Japan and its name was changed to Yamaha Motor

India Private Limited (hereinafter  referred to  as the ‘Yamaha’).

After this separation, the workmen working in Yamaha ceased to

be the members of the appellant-Union, in view of Clause 4 of its

Constitution which spelled out who could be the members of the

Union.  With an intention to take them within its fold again, the

appellant-Union amended Clause 4 of its Constitution.  Clause 4

deals with ‘Membership’.  As per the amended clause, workers

employed  in  any  erstwhile  Escorts  concern  at  Haryana  are

entitled  to  become the  members  of  the  appellant-Union.   The

aforesaid Clause 4 of  appellant’s constitution was amended in

June, 2001.  This amendment was sent to the Registrar, Trade

Union, Haryana for its record and approval.  The Registrar, Trade

Union did not approve the amendment.  Challenging the decision

of the Registrar, Trade Union, writ petition was filed in the High

Court  of  Punjab  & Haryana by the appellant-Union.   This  writ

petition  has  also  been  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  vide

impugned judgment dated April 20, 2015.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 2 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

3) In the challenge laid to the view taken by the High Court,  the

question of law which is raised by the appellant-Union is as to

whether a Trade Union can have a membership of the workmen

from other industries? To put it otherwise, whether a Trade Union

can  have  its  members  who  are  working  in  different

establishments  or  industries  enabling  that  Trade  Union  to

espouse their cause?     

4) In  addition  to  the  aforesaid  facts  noticed  at  a  glance,  it  is

desirable to set out other facts also so that the factual narration is

complete:

The  appellant-Union  is  a  registered  Trade  Union  having

Registration No. 75 of 1968.  It was formed and got registered

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act’)  in  the  year  1968.   Its  registered  office  is  located  at  29,

Neelam Chowk, Faridabad.  The Union is duly recognised by the

Escorts  Group  of  Industries.   The  Constitution  of  the

appellant-Union  was  duly  approved  by  the  Registrar  of  Trade

Unions.   Clause  4  of  the  Union’s  Constitution,  as  it  originally

stood, reads as follows:

“Membership “Any workers who are employed in any Escorts concern at  Faridabad  and  agree  to  follow  the  rules  and regulation  of  the  Union can become a  member  after

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 3 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

filling  the  membership  form  and  by  paying  the membership fee monthly or annually.  Any member who leaves the job of any of Escorts concern at Faridabad will cease to be a member of the Union.”

 5) In the month of  August,  2001 the establishment  manufacturing

two wheeler motorcycles under the brand name of ‘Yamaha’ got

segregated  from  the  Escorts  Group  of  Industries.   Thus,  it

became a 100% subsidiary of ‘Yamaha Motor Company, Japan’.

In  view  of  this  separation,  the  Escorts  Group  of  Companies

ceased to have any concern with the manufacturing of motorcycle

and ownership or management of motorcycle manufacturing unit

which  is  now  exclusively  with  the  ‘Yamaha  Motor  Company,

Japan’ named in India as ‘Yamaha Motor India Private Limited’.

The Escorts Company in fact does not have any share-holding

with it.   

6) Since  Clause  4  of  the  appellant’s  Constitution  provides

membership to those workers who are employed in any Escorts

concern  at  Faridabad,  all  the  workers  of  Motor  Cycle

Manufacturing Unit who became workers of Yamaha also ceased

to be the members of the appellant-Union inasmuch as, as per

the  aforesaid  Clause  4  of  the  Constitution,  workers  of  other

industries cannot be the members of the appellant-Union.   

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 4 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

7) The  appellant-Union  avers  that  even  after  the  change  of

employment, the workers of Yamaha continued to be members of

the  appellant-Union.   The  appellant-Union  even  entered  into

settlements with the employer Yamaha on behalf of its workers.

So  much  so,  deductions  from  workers’  salary  towards

membership subscription of  the appellant-Union continued.  As

per  the  management  of  Yamaha,  this  happened  due  to  the

reason that it was kept in dark about the fact that its workers had

ceased to be the members of the appellant-Union.  Be that as it

may, nothing turns on that.  Fact remains that as per unamended

Clause 4 of the appellant’s Constitution, workmen of Yamaha did

not remain the members of the appellant.  Therefore, in order to

bring  the  workers  of  Yamaha  within  their  fold  by  giving  them

membership, the appellant-Union decided to amend Clause 4 of

its  Constitution  by  substituting  the  existing  Clause  4  with  the

following Clause:

“Membership Any workman who is employed in any of the industry originally established by the Escorts group and agrees to  follow  the  rules,  regulation  and  objectives  of  the Union  can  become  a  member  after  depositing  the requisite  subscription  fee.   His  membership  would stand cancel upon his retirement from the Industry or upon his submitting the resignation.

Clarification The change of name of an Industry established by the Escorts  group  or  change  of  management  would  not

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 5 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

affect the membership of the Union.”  

8) The  amendment  was  sent  to  the  Registrar,  Trade  Unions,

Haryana for its record and approval.  The said amendment was

not accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions on the ground that

there is no commonness of purpose with the current workers of

the  group.   To put  it  straight,  according  to  the  Registrar,  the

appellant-Union  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  Trade  Union  vis-a-vis

Yamaha and that it can only function vis-a-vis Escorts Ltd.  The

operative  portion  of  the  order  of  the  Registrar  rejecting  the

amendment reads as under:

“If the industrial unit(s) manufacturing a particular kind of  items,  say  agricultural  items,  happen  to  be segregated from the Escorts Group of Industries then the workers working in such unit(s) would automatically cease to  continue  as  members  of  the  present  union under  the  existing  Rule  4.   However,  under  the proposed  amending  Rule  4  read  with  explanation appended  thereto,  such  workers  may  continue  to remain members of the union despite the fact that after such segregation they cannot have any commonness of interests with other workers of the Escorts Group of Industries.  Such segregation has in fact taken place. By the time of  submission of  present  request  by the union on 25.06.2001 the Escorts  Group of  Industries used to manufacture two-wheeler motor cycles.  But in August  2001 the unit  manufacturing this  two wheeler motor  cycles  under  the  brand  name  of  ‘Yamaha’ segregated from the Escorts Group of  Industries and has  become  a  100%  subsidiary  of  “Yamaha  Motor Company,  Japan”.   Since  August,  2001,  the  Escorts Group  of  Industries  has  totally  ceased  to  have  any concern  with  the  motor  cycle  manufacturing.   After August, 2001 the Escorts Group of Industries has not been manufacturing motor cycles.  The ownership and management of motor cycle manufacturing unit is now

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 6 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

of Yamaha Motor Company, Japan and the Escorts do not have any kind of concern therewith.  The workers working  in  the  motor  cycle  manufacturing  have  thus legally ceased to be the members of the present union by virtue of existing Rule 4 of the constitution.  They do not have any commonness of interests with the workers of  Escorts  Group  of  Industries.   But  if  the  proposed amendment  is  allowed,  such workers,  if  they so like, would  continue  to  remain  members  of  this  union despite here being no commonness of interests.  Such a  provision  would  be  contrary  to  the  above  said provisions of the Act.”

9) The said view of the Registrar, Trade Union, has been upheld by

the single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court.

It may, however, be pointed out that during pendency of the writ

petition,  a  further  amendment  was  made  in  Clause  4  on

November 27, 2007, which was approved by the Registrar, Trade

Unions.  The said amendment clause reads as follows:

“Any worker who is employed in any Escorts concern at Faridabad  and agrees to follow the Rules, Regulations and Discipline of the Union can become a Member after filling Membership form and by paying the Membership Fee  1  rupee  monthly  or  12  rupees  annually.   Any member who leaves the job of any Escorts concern at Faridabad  will  be  ceased  to  be  the  member  of  the Union.

Now the annual  subscription would be Rs.100/-.   The employees  working  in  the  combined  companies  of Yamaha,  JCB,  Class,  Fortis  and  Eco  Auto  company Escorts (JCB) have remained the bona fide members of All Escorts Employees Union.  They can still retain their Membership by paying the annual subscription.”

 10) The  said  amendment,  however,  was  not  brought  to  the

notice  of  the High  Court.   When the  appellant-Union  came to

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 7 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

know about this amendment, they filed a review petition enclosing

the  said  amendment.   However,  the  High  Court  rejected  the

review petition on the ground that “No review can, thus, be made

on  the  basis  of  material  which  was  not  the  subject  matter  of

consideration”.   

11) Impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the

writ appeal of the appellant herein reveals that it examined the

provisions of Sections 6(e), 9-A and 22 of the Act  on the basis of

which  it  came to  the  conclusion that  there  has to  be a  direct

connectivity between the industry and its workers.  Para 13 of the

judgment captures the essence of reasoning given by the High

Court which is reproduced below:

“13.  The statutory Scheme thus repeatedly refers to the direct  connectivity  between  the  industry  where  the worker or employee is engaged and the Trade Union in which  such worker  or  employee is  a  member.  The existence  of  commonness  and  relationship  is therefore,  sine qua non for the constitution of a Trade Union or enrolment of its members and office bearers. To say it differently, there cannot be a Trade Union for collective  bargaining  in  a  trade  dispute  where  the Trade Union is not connected at all with the industry.”

 12) Mr.  Sanjay  Parikh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

appellant-Union,  pointing  out  the  connection  of  the  workers  of

Yamaha  with  the  appellant-Union,  submitted  that  all  the

workers/employees working in different units in Escorts Group of

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 8 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

Companies including the unit  manufacturing motorcycles,  were

members of the appellant-Union.  He emphasised that even after

the segregation of the said unit, workers of Yamaha continued to

be the  members of  the  appellant-Union  and were also paying

their  subscription regularly.  Yamaha had even recognised the

appellant-Union as the management of Yamaha had entered into

the settlements with the appellant-Union on June 4,  2010 and

October 29, 2013 under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.  He referred to those settlements which are annexed with

the  SLP Paper  Book.   Not  only  this,  Yamaha  has  even been

collecting  the  membership  subscription  of  its  workers  and

remitting the same to the appellant-Union.  According to him, this

factual position was sufficient to hold that the appellant-Union had

right  to  represent  the  workers  of  Yamaha  and,  therefore,  the

amendment in question could not have been rejected.

13) On legal  aspects,  submission of  Mr. Parikh was that  the

power given to the Registrar, Trade Union under Section 8 of the

Act  is  an  administrative  power  and  not  a  quasi-judicial/judicial

one.  Thus, impugned order of the Registrar was in excess of his

jurisdiction,  contended  the  counsel.   He  also  referred  to  the

definition of “Trade Dispute” contained in Section 2(g) as well as

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 9 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

“Trade Union” incorporated in Section 2(h) of the Act from where

he sought to draw sustenance in his argument that Trade Union

can be formed for regulating relations between workmen and its

employers; workmen and workmen or employers and employers.

Submission was that it did not limit to the workers of a particular

industry/establishment  only.   Another  aspect  from  where  he

endeavoured to draw support was that right to form Trade Union

was protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and,

therefore,  if  a  person  fulfils  the  requirements  of  becoming  a

member of a Trade Union and a Trade Union is accepting such

person as a member, his right of joining a Trade Union cannot be

denied in law.

14) Commenting upon and questioning the reasoning given by

the High Court, he submitted that the scheme of Sections 6(e),

9-A and 22 of  the Act  nowhere confines to the workers of  the

establishment alone and even outsiders can be the members.  He

argued in this behalf that by amendment, the appellant-Union has

broadened the scope of its membership clause.  The amendment

allowed  workers  of  Yamaha  to  join  the  appellant-Union.   The

choice is with the workers of Yamaha.  They may join the Trade

Union or they may not.  Even those workers who were members

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 10 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

of  the  appellant-Union  before  Yamaha  was  formed,  they  may

continue as members, or they may resign from membership.  By

amendment,  the  appellant-Union  has  only  clarified  the

membership clause.   The fact,  however, is  that  those workers

who  were  members  of  appellant-Union  continued  their

membership  even  after  the  formation  of  Yamaha.   The

appellant-Union,  therefore,  remained  connected  with  Escorts

Group of Industries and Yamaha by having their workers actually

engaged therein as its members.  Such amendment cannot be

said to be violative of any provision of the Act.  

15) Stiff resistance is put by the learned counsel appearing for

the  respondents,  who  justified  the  approach  of  the  Registrar,

Trade Union, which has received the imprimatur of the High Court

as well.  Referring to the same very definition of “Trade Union”,

the learned counsel argued that the analysis of the definition of

the Trade Union clearly shows that the purpose of Trade Union is

to  maintain  balance,  harmony  in  the  relations  of  the  persons

involved  in  industrial  activity  such  as  process  and  production.

The purpose of the Trade Union is not only to secure harmony

between  employers  and  workmen  but  also  it  is  intended  to

improve  peaceful  relations  between  employers  and  workers.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 11 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

According to her, the definition further indicates that  the Trade

Union is formed primarily for the following two purposes.  Firstly,

for regulating the relations between (a) workmen and employers,

or (b) workmen and workmen, or (c) employers and employers.

Secondly, for  imposing restrictive  conditions on the conduct  of

any trade or business of its members.  Trade Union is regarded

essentially a tool for collective bargaining between employer and

employee.   However,  it  was  not  meant  to  disrupt  the  entire

industry by way of strike or other such activity.   

16) She also referred to the amendment made in the Act in the

year  2001  which  are  aimed  at  checking  multiplicity  of  Trade

Unions, thereby promoting internal democracy and facilitating in

the ordinary growth and regulation of Trade Unions.  In this hue,

she argued that in the Principal Act, it is provided in Section 4 that

any  seven  members  can  make  an  application  for  registration.

Whereas  under  Amendment  Act,  2001,  that  seven  persons

applying for registration must be workmen engaged or employed

in  the  establishment  or  an  industry.   As  a  result  of  these

amendments, the Trade Unions were prohibited from introducing

members not connected with the establishment or industry with

which  they intend to  negotiate  for  workers  right.   The  right  to

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 12 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

negotiate  as  well  as  the  protection  from the  civil  and  criminal

liability  is  available  to  only  those  who  are  working  with  the

particular Establishment or Industry.  Third parties not connected

with the establishment or industry should not be allowed to use

the Trade Unions to further their vested interests.   

17) Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that there

were many registered Trade Unions of general nature prior to the

amendment in 2001 mentioned above which were not connected

with specific  Industry as required in  Section 4 and its proviso.

There were also instances of industries like in the present case of

Escorts Group whereby number of units had a common union but

got fragmented with the advent of liberalization into the hands of

the respective foreign collaborators.  The commonness of interest

was only the organisation as a social organisation its huge funds

and assets but the commonness of professional interest between

the workers of each unit were totally divergent.  Union consisting

of  workers  of  other  industries  forces  the  management  into

submission  and  acceptance  of  unnecessary  interference  in

normal functioning of  the units.   The very proof in the present

case is that the workers employed in the unit of Yamaha situated

in nearby location in Uttar Pradesh formed a separate Union and

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 13 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

got  registered  with  the  Registrar,  Trade  Union,  Uttar  Pradesh.

Whereas many of the States have their own and different law on

industrial relations.  The hegemony and malice thereof is proved

by the fact that the Yamaha unit in Faridabad did not (or could

not)  form  a  separate  Union  when  even  the  management  is

supporting it and whey they continue to function under the Union

of workers of another industry.  Therefore, any disturbance in the

representative character  like in  the present  case will  obviously

have far reaching and damaging consequences even within the

Union of different units and the industrial relations therein.   

18) Referring to the aforesaid scheme of the Act, with particular

emphasis on amendments carried out in the year 2001, learned

counsel  further  argued  that  the  right  of  membership  of  any

organisation cannot be in isolation without inter se connection of

rights  and  responsibilities  under  the  law.   Unless  the  rights

percolate into a legally valid mechanism to secure them under

other  laws  like  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  such

membership  would  be  theoretical  and  in  contradiction  of  the

actual  purpose  qua  the  employment  in  a  particular  industry.

Therefore, the conflicts emanating there from would be fatal for

the very relationship of  employer and employee thus defeating

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 14 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

the very purpose of maintaining orderly Trade Union without the

hegemony of a particular Union or unnecessary interference by a

minority Union for securing the rights of the workers. So to say

any change in the interpretation of the object and structure of the

working of the Act may result  in the possibility of an unrelated

Union in ruining the industry and also a possibility of a minority

Union  being  misused  by  the  management  to  manipulate  the

industrial relations in the unit to the disadvantage of the workers.

Therefore,  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  amendment  of

Sections 4, 9-A and 22 in the year 2001 in maintaining a balance

in the functioning of  Trade Unions  qua  the industry.  She also

submitted that rights given to the workmen to form an association

are not the same as rights given to the individual of forming such

associations and, therefore, Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of

India cannot be invoked by the appellant-Union, more so, when

law permits the State to impose reasonable restriction on such a

right.   

19) Commenting  upon  the  amendment  to  Clause  4  of  the

Constitution of appellant’s Union carried out by the general body

of  the  appellant-Union  in  its  meeting  on  November  27,  2007,

which was approved by the Registrar, she submitted that it was

an inadvertent error on the part of the Registrar because of the Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 15 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

reason that the appellant had concealed the material fact about

the  rejection  of  earlier  similar  application  by  the  Registrar,

therefore, the approval was withdrawn vide order dated October

21, 2015 after following due procedure.

20) Management of Yamaha, though not made party in these

proceedings by the appellant, was allowed to intervene.  It has

also defended the decision of the Registrar, as approved by the

High Court.   Learned counsel appearing for Yamaha submitted

that after separation from Escorts Group, on June 23, 2001, a

notice  was  issued  by the  Management  of  Yamaha  to  all  their

workmen informing them that as Yamaha is not concerned with

Escorts Group of Companies directly or indirectly any more they

cannot grant recognition to All Escorts Employees Union i.e. the

appellant-Union  herein.   Thereafter,  the  workmen  of  Surajpur

Plant  of  appellant  company,  who  were  also  part  of  the

appellant-Union, decided to form a separate Union.  The workers

of  Surajpur  Plant  of  Yamaha are now being represented by a

separate Union namely “Yamaha Motor Employees Union”, which

were being earlier represented by the appellant-Union.  The said

Union is duly registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur,

Uttar  Pradesh,  having  Registration  Number  7179.   Learned

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 16 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

counsel also argued that there was no commonality of interest

between  the  workers  of  Escorts  and  that  of  Yamaha  and,

therefore, it was not open to the appellant to give membership to

the workers  of  Yamaha.   It  was also argued that  Escorts  and

Yamaha are in different trade and there are practical difficulties in

dealing with appellant-Union which is essentially dealing with the

management  of  Escorts  Limited.   It  was  also  argued  that  by

referring to approval of Clause 4 by the Registrar vide its order

dated June 18,  2009,  the appellant-Union had suppressed the

material fact that by subsequent order dated October 21, 2015,

the Registrar had recalled the aforesaid order and rejected the

amendment.   The appellant was, therefore, guilty of suppression

of  material  fact.   It  was also submitted that  some settlements

were  entered into  by Yamaha with  the  appellant-Union as  the

appellant-Union  kept  Yamaha  under  dark  and  mislead  it  by

claiming  that  workmen  of  Yamaha  were  the  members  of  the

appellant-Union and it had right to represent them.  Regarding the

scheme provided under the Act,  learned counsel reiterated the

submissions of  the Registrar  as well  as reasoning of  the High

Court.   

21) As per Clause 4 as originally stood, only those workmen

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 17 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

who were employed in Escorts Group of Industries could become

members of the appellant-Union.  This Clause also made it clear

that the membership of a workman who ceases to be employee

of Escorts Group shall automatically be terminated.  It was, thus,

clear that the appellant-Union wanted only those workmen to be

its  members  who  are  the  employees  of  the  Establishment  in

question,  namely,  the  Escorts  Group.   After  the  hiving  off

motorcycle manufacturing unit from the Escorts Group and take

over thereof by Yamaha, this unit has no common interest with

the workers of the Escorts Group.  This becomes clear as the

workers of the two plants of the said motorcycle unit were taken

over by Yamaha vide notice dated June 23, 2001.  These workers

have thereafter become the workers of Yamaha.  Thus, by virtue

of original/unamended Clause 4, they no longer remain members

of the appellant-Union.   

22) From the definition of Trade Union contained in Section 2(h)

of  the  Act,  it  becomes  apparent  that  such  a  Union  is  formed

primarily  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  relations  between

workmen and employers (which is the instant case) or it can be

between  workmen  and  workmen  or  between  employers  and

employers.   It  includes  any  federation  of  two  or  more  Trade

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 18 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

Unions also though we are not concerned with it.  When we keep

in mind the aforesaid objective of  formation of  a Trade Union,

namely,  regulating  the  relations  between  the  workmen  and  its

employer, normally such a Union of workmen would be of those

workmen  who  work  in  a  particular  Establishment.   This  gets

further  strengthened  when  we  peruse  the  definition  of  Trade

Dispute contained in Section 2(g) of the Act.  The Trade Unions of

workmen while regulating their relations between the employers

would  normally  have  negotiations  representing  its  workmen

before the employer and in case those negotiations do not result

in  amicable  settlement  or  resolution  of  disputes,  such  Trade

Unions would raise trade dispute with its employer.  Section 6 of

the  Act  mandates  a  Trade  Union  to  have  its

Constitution/Bye-Laws/Rules  by  incorporation  of  the  provisions

contained  therein  i.e.  under  Section  6.   Clause  (e)  deals  with

admission  of  ordinary  members  and  specifically  provides  that

ordinary  members  should  be  those  persons  who  are  actually

engaged or employed in an industry with which the Trade Union

is connected.  This provision implicitly confines the membership

to those who are the workmen of  the industry where they are

employed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 19 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

23) The  moot  question  here  is  as  to  whether  such  a  Trade

Union  which  primarily  has  the  membership  of  the  worker  of

particular  Establishment  or  industry  can  broaden  its  scope  by

opening  the  membership  even  to  those  who  are  not  the

employees  of  the  Establishment  in  respect  of  which  the  said

Trade Union has been formed.

24) At  this  juncture,  it  becomes  pertinent  to  note  that  the

workers  of  Yamaha  have  formed  their  own  separate  Union,

known as Yamaha Motor Employees Union.  This Union is duly

registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)

having Registration No. 7179.  It is this Union which now stands

recognised  by  the  Management  of  Yamaha.   In  these

circumstances,  the very purpose in  amending Clause 4  in  the

manner it seeks to do stands frustrated.  In any case, Clause 4

was amended in the year 2007 and that amendment has been

approved  by  the  Registrar,  Trade  Union.   Therefore,  issue  of

amendment in Clause 4, as carried out in June, 2001, becomes a

non-issue.   

25) In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to deal with the

issue  raised  in  these  appeals  as  the  issue  does  not  survive.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 20 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

Thus,  leaving  the  question  of  law  open,  these  appeals  are

dismissed.    

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 21 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

(REVISED) ITEM NO.1501           COURT NO.6               SECTION IV (For Judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015) ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION                     Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                       Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017  

This  matter  was  called  on  for  pronouncement  of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Padikh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR

Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

non-reportable judgment. Application for impleadment stands disposed of.

   (NIDHI AHUJA)       (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER     COURT MASTER

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 22 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

ITEM NO.1501           COURT NO.6               SECTION IV (For Judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015) ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION                     Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                       Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017  

This  matter  was  called  on  for  pronouncement  of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Padikh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

non-reportable judgment.

   (NIDHI AHUJA)       (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER     COURT MASTER

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 23 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)