w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



National Fertilizer Limited v/s Nangal Fertilizer Workers Union & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1961GOI003439

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1940PTC010240

Company & Directors' Information:- THE WORKERS CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36900WB1947PTC014001

Company & Directors' Information:- WORKERS CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1947PTC015663

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999KL1951PLC000818

    CWP-5676 of 2016

    Decided On, 28 March 2016

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

    For the Petitioner: Vipin Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

Sabina, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 12.12.2014 which was later corrected on 12.08.2015 vide Annexure P-11.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rs. 5/- were deducted from the salary of each workman in pursuance to the letter written by respondent No. 4-registered Trade Union. The amount was deducted in pursuance to letter, Annexure P-2. The union utilised the said amount for the welfare of all the workers who were working under the petitioner. The said practice was being followed since long and as per the request of the elected union. In pursuance to letter Annexure P-2, the amount of Rs. 5/- per month deducted from the salary of the workmen, was deposited in the account of respondent No. 4.

3. In the present case, respondents No. 1 and 2 had raised an industrial dispute challenging the action of the petitioner-management qua deduction of Rs. 5/- per month made from the salary of the members of the union-respondents No. 1 and 2. The dispute raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh vide award dated 12.12.2014, later corrected vide order dated 12.08.2015, answered the reference in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-management.

4. Admittedly, the members of union-respondents No. 1 and 2 are not members of union-respondent No. 4. In fact, request had been made by union-respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P-2 that Rs. 5/- be deducted from salary of each workman towards union fund.

5. Section 7(kk) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, reads as under:-

"deductions made, with the written authorisation of the employed person, for the payment of his contribution to any fund constituted by the employer or a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926), for the welfare of the employed persons or the members of their families, or both, and approved by the [the appropriate Government] or any officer specified by it in this behalf, during the continuance of such approval."

6. Thus, as per the above provision the management has the power to deduct for payment of contribution of workmen to any fund with written authorisation of the employed person. Admittedly, the members of union-respondents No. 1 and 2 are not members of union-respondent No. 4. In these circumstances, any request made by union-respondent No. 4 qua deduction from the salary of the workmen would not bind the workmen who are members of union-respondents No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court, rightly, held that the respondent-management was not legally capable of deducting any amount from the salary of the workers/members of union-respondents No. 1 and 2 at the instance of a third party and without the consent of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the workers. 7. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. 8. Dismissed. However, petitioner-management would be at liberty to recover the amount in question from respondent No. 4, in accordance with law.
O R