Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Trade Unions
Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India empowers citizens to form
associations or unions. Section 2(zl) of the IR Code defines trade unions as “any combination, whether temporary or permanent, basically formed to regulate the relations between workers and employers, between workers and workers, or between employers and employers”. Chapter III of the IR Code entails provisions regarding trade unions and states provisions with regard to registration of trade unions, criteria for registration, provisions to be contained in the constitution of rules of trade unions, grounds for cancellation of registration, etc. As we know, there is always a huge power parity between workers and employers; it becomes quintessential to represent the workers and their concerns to avoid exploitation of workers.
Considering the power gap between workers and employers, it can be
observed that workers used to collectively go on a strike and freeze the working of factory/industry or industries until the employer addressed their grievances. The strike causes a sudden stoppage in production and leads to economic losses for the employer. For a quick redressal of workers’ grievances, under Section 14, it is mandatory to have a negotiating union or a negotiating council in an industrial establishment. Such a negotiating union shall be recognised by the employer, and in case of any grievances, the council will discuss/negotiate with the employer to address the issues faced by the workers.
With regards to trade unions, efforts have been made to retain their powers, but viz-a-viz limits them from making decisions that do not serve the interests of the workers and put an unnecessary burden on the employer.
Immunity to Trade Unions
1. Under Section 16 of the IR Code, no suit or legal proceeding shall be
maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union for any act done in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute in which a member breaks his/her contract of employment. A registered trade union cannot be held liable for any tortious act done in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute. N.M. Joshi and B.P. Wadia represented India in the Washington conference of 1919 that led to the formation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In 1921, the workers of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills went on a strike for better wages and working conditions. Mr. B.P. Wadia was actively involved in that strike. An injunction was issued against Mr. Wadia for inducing the workers to commit a breach of their employment contract. This clearly shows that during British rule, trade unions were not free from civil liabilities.
On March 1, 1921, N.M. Joshi introduced a resolution in the Central
Legislative Assembly for the Trade Unions Act stating that the TU Act will ensure good and proper rules, appointment of necessary officials, legal status of trade unions and strikes done by the unions, etc. Further, it will ensure that trade union officials are not subjected to any civil or criminal proceedings for standing up for the workers’ cause.
It is imperative to note that one of the trade union activities is to declare a
strike, and this has been recognised all over the world as a legitimate weapon of collective bargaining. Strikes are an integral part of “bona fide trade union activity”. Unless the employer faces economic losses, it is very difficult to bring him/her to the negotiation table and address the issues faced by the workers.
Standing orders
Under the new code, the minimum number of workers employed in an
establishment to have standing orders has been increased to 300. The increased threshold would ensure that employers have more flexibility to hire and fire. As per the government, this would lead to an increase in employment. For a better understanding of standing orders, one can refer to this article.
Strikes and lock-outs
Section 62 of the IR Code specifies the conditions within which workers
cannot go on a strike and employers cannot lock-out any of their workers. It mentions that a person employed in an industrial establishment cannot go on a strike without giving a prior notice of sixty days before going on a strike, or within fourteen days of giving notice of strike, before the expiry of the date of strike specified in the notice during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of the proceedings, during the pendency of any arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and sixty days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
This is one of the most criticised provisions of the IR Code, as according to
the trade unions, it takes away the workers’ right to strike. However, Labour and Employment Minister Santosh Kumar Gangwar said that “the government has not taken away the workers’ right to strike.” He also added that the notice period gives the two parties a chance to resolve the dispute.
Section 62(2) discusses the conditions under which an employer can/cannot
lock-out any of his workers. The conditions are the same as those for the workers before going on a strike.
Now, the question arises whether workers are entitled to wages when they’re on strike, as on the face of it, they are not performing their duty and are violating their employment contract. The Supreme Court has given certain judgements in this line. In the cases of Churakulam Tea Estate v. Workmen (1969) and Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1979), the Supreme Court held that strikes are a legal weapon available to workers. However, the workers are entitled to their wages only if the strike was legal and justified. Any deviation from the law would render the strike illegal and would disentitle the workers to wages. In the case of Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala and Ors. (1990), the SC held that workers are entitled to pay only for the time they actually work, and the employer is entitled to cut wages when workers are sitting idle on a strike. The deduction of wages was justified and the SC reiterated the principle of “no work, no pay”.
Finally, in the case of Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994), it was held that to claim wages during the strike period, the strike must be legal, and it must establish its legality according to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
