1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A. NOS. 1744-1745 OF 2017 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12843-12844 OF 2017

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

VERSUS

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

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Application for intervention is allowed.

2) Appeals filed by All  Escorts Employees Union were dismissed by this

Court  vide  judgment  dated  September  14,  2017.   Appellant  is  a

registered  Trade  Union  which  was  representing  the  employees  of

Escorts Group of Industries and is duly recognised by the employers as

well.  One of the group companies was Escorts Yamaha Ltd. which was

a joint venture of Escorts Management and Yamaha Motor Company,

Japan.  The employees of Escorts Yamaha Ltd. were also members of

the employees-Union.  However, in the year 2001, Escorts Yamaha Ltd.

was taken over by Yamaha Motor Company, Japan and its name was

2

changed to Yamaha Motor India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Yamaha’).

3) Appellant-Union  has  its  Constitution.   Clause  4  thereof  deals  with

‘Membership’.  This clause as it stood prior to the year 2001, inter alia,

mentioned that any member who leaves the job of any Escorts concern

at Faridabad will cease to be the member of the Union.  By virtue of this

clause, all the workmen working in Yamaha ceased to be the members

of appellant-Union as they no longer remained the employees of any

Escorts concern.  In order to overcome this difficulty and to allow the

workmen of Yamaha also to become members of the appellant-Union,

clause 4 was amended.  This amendment was sent to Registrar, Trade

Union, Haryana for  its record and approval.   However, the Registrar,

Trade Union refused to approve this amendment.   This decision was

challenged  before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  by  the

appellant-Union by filing a writ petition.  This writ petition was dismissed

by the High Court vide judgment dated April 20, 2015. It is this judgment

on the aforesaid issue as to whether the amendment could be allowed

or not, was the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017.

While dismissing these appeals on September 14, 2017, this Court inter

alia stated as under:

“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

3

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.”  

 4) From the reading of para 24 extracted above, it can be discerned that

this Court took the view that since the workers of Yamaha had formed

their own separate Trade Union which is also duly registered with the

Registrar,  Trade Union and stands  recognised by the  managment  of

Yamaha, the very purpose of amending clause 4 stands defeated.  It is

further mentioned that, in any case, clause 4 was amended in the year

2007 and since that amendment has been approved by the Registrar,

Trade Union, the issue of amendment in clause 4, as carried out in June,

2001, becomes a non-issue and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal

with the issue.   

5) In  these  applications  filed  by  the  appellant,  it  is  submitted  that  the

4

observation in para 24 to the effect that amendment to clause 4 carried

out in the year 2007 has been approved by the Registrar, Trade Union is

factually incorrect.  It is stated that the Additonal Registrar, Trade Union,

Haryana  in  his  counter  affidavit  has  mentioned  that  the  order  dated

October 21, 2015 was passed whereby the amendment approved vide

letter dated November 24, 2007 was withdrawn/cancelled by invoking

clause 4 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.  Therefore, amendment to

clause 4 carried out in the year 2007 also does not exist.  On that basis,

the prayer made in the applications is that findings given in paragraphs

24 and 25 of the judgment dated September 14, 2017 be recalled and

the issue that arises for consideration should be decided on merits.   

6) Insofar  as  factual  error  that  has  occurred  in  the  judgment  dated

September 14, 2017 as pointed out in these applications is concerned,

the appellant/applicant is correct in its submission.  Though amendment

to clause 4 of the Constitution of the appellant in November, 2007 was

initially  approved  by  the  Registrar,  however,  the  said  approval  was

withdrawn by the Registrar vide order dated October 21, 2015.  It was

stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Registrar that initially

the  amendment  was  approved  inadvertently,  which  had  occasioned

because of the concealment of the material facts about the rejection of

the earlier application by the Registrar.  However, after this fact came to

the notice of the Registrar, the amendment was withdrawn vide order

5

dated October 21, 2015 after following due procedure.   

7) After  hearing  counsel  for  the  parties,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that

notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  factual  error,  the  end  result  remains

unaltered.   In  case,  the  amendment  to  clause  4  which  was  initially

approved  by  the  Registrar,  but  later  on  withdrawn,  vide  order  dated

October 21, 2015, this decision of the Registrar would furnish a fresh

cause of action to the appellant.  It has not come on record whether this

order was challenged at all or not.   

8) Be that as it  may, main reason in our judgment dated September 14,

2017  to  dismiss  the  appeals  was  that  the  workers  of  Yamaha  have

formed  their  own  separate  Union  which  is  duly  registered  and  also

recognised by the managment of Yamaha.  Therefore, the very purpose

of amending clause 4 stands frustrated.

9) In this behalf,  it  would be pertinent to mention that  All  India Yamaha

Motor  Employees  Sabha  has  filed  intervention  application.   In  this

application, it is, inter alia, stated that intervenor Trade Union is formed

for the exclusive benefit for the workmen of Faridabad Plant of Yamaha.

It is further stated that all the workers of the said Faridabad Plant are the

members of the intervenor Union and they are not being represented by

the appellant-Union.  These workers have elected the office-bearers of

the intervenor Union and it is this Union which is now representing 100%

6

workers working in the said Union and is negotiating with the employers.

Insofar  as  appellant-Union  is  concerned,  this  Union  represents  the

workers of Escorts Group of Companies.  As per Section 6 of the Trade

Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), it is necessary for

the  Trade  Union  to  provide  for  the  matters  enumerated  in  the  said

Section. Clause (e) thereof deals with admission of ordinary members

and provide as under:

“(e)  the admission of ordinary members who shall be persons actually engaged or employed in an industry with whihc the Trade  Union  is  connected,  and  also  the  admission  of  the number of honorary or temporary members as office-bearers required under section 22 to form the executive of the Trade Union;”

10) As per this clause, ordinary members should be those who are

actually engaged or employed in an industry in whcih the Trade Union is

connected.   It  is  also significant  to  note  that  a Union in  a  particular

establishment  should  have  representative  character.  For  this  reason,

Section  9A of  the  Act,  which  was  inserted  by Act  31  of  2001 w.e.f.

January 9, 2002 mandates that a registered Trade Union of workmen

shall  at  all  times continue to have not less than ten per cent or  one

hundred of the workmen, whichever is less,  subject  to a minimum of

seven, engaged or employed in an establishment or industry with which

it is connected, as its members.  Section 22 of the Act contains another

stipulation,  namely, not  less than one-half  of  the total  number of  the

office-bearers of every registered Trade Union in an unrecognised sector

7

shall be persons actually engaged or employed in an industry with which

the Trade Union is connected.  Section 22 in the aforesaid form came to

be substituted by Act 31 of 2001 w.e.f. January 9, 2002.  Once we find

that all the workmen of Yamaha are members of the intervenor Union,

obviously the appellant-Union is  not  in  a position to comply with  the

provisions of Section 9A read with Section 22 of the Act.

11) For  these  reasons,  the  applications  praying  for  recall  of  the

findings recorded in paragraphs No. 24 and 25 of the judgment dated

September 14, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017,

are dismissed.    

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

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

NEW DELHI; MARCH 23, 2018.