Chennai
Setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour who had refused to allow retired employees of the Karur Vysa Bank to form an association to espouse their grievances relating to pension and other benefits, Justice S Vaidyanathan said, “India is a democratic country, where there is no restriction for the citizens to express their grievances to government by means of Ahimsa and as such, preventing one sect of persons, namely, retired employees to form a Trade Union to espouse their cause to the government cannot be permitted at any cost, by giving a different interpretation to the provisions of law.”
Also noting that the authority is bound to register the association formed by the retired employees, unless there are any prohibited ground for non-registering the same, he said, “In case the Authority finds that the object of formation of the Association is not for espousing the cause of its employees and deviates the conditions stipulated under the Act, 1926, then it is open to the Authority to refuse such registration, but not on the ground that the retired employees will not be entitled to form an association, thereby discriminating them from the employees, who are on the roll.”
While the Karur Vysa Bank Retirees’ Association had submitted that a reading of Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act authorises any person, who was in employment to form an association, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had contended that persons who are on roll can only make such application for registration of the Association under the said Act.
Justice Vaidyanathan on conceding to the petitioner’s submission, said, “It is pertinent to mention here that the words used in Section 2(g) of the Act are that the dispute between employers and employees, which means that even the past employees that is employees ceased to be in employment are also entitled to be a part of trade union for the purpose of raising a dispute. That being the case, the Authority was not right in refusing to register the trade union and the order of rejection is incorrect.”
Also, remitting the matter to the Authority for fresh consideration with a direction not to reject the request of the Appellant Association, the judge in his order also held, “A close reading of Section 6(f) amply proves the fact that a member can be either a regular employee or a retired employee and therefore, the act of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in mechanically rejecting the application for registration of the Trade Union of the Association cannot be accepted and is unsustainable.”
However, Justice Vaidyanathan in his order also held, “Admittedly, the retired employees will not be permitted to join hands with the Association of the current employees, as the nature of grievances being faced by either of them will be on a different path and both cannot be mingled together forespousing the same to the industry with which they are actually connected.”
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android