A registered trade union must follow the provisions of the Trade Unions Act 1926. There are some rights and liabilities of trade unions. In particular, the following are some restrictions in a registered trade union: CHAPTER III of the Trade Union Act, 1926 enumerates the rights and liabilities of a registered trade unions.
An obligation is also imposed on the trade unions to spend the funds only for the purposes specified in the Act
The list of purposes of which the general funds of the union may be spent is as follows:
Taking insurance policies for workers. Mario Raposo vs H M Bhandarkar and others 1994 – Office bearers of a trade union invested the money from general fund into shares of UTI. This was held invalid because it is a speculative investment
Section 17 : IMMUNITIES AVAILABLE TO A REGISTERED TRADE UNION
However, this immunity is partial in the sense that it is available only with respect to the legal agreements created by the members for the furtherance of valid objects of a trade union as described in section 15 of the act.
The immunity cannot be claimed for an act that is an offence
Section 18 deals with the immunity from civil proceedings afforded to a Registered TU and to its members or office bearers
Exceptions for Immunity :
In the case of West India Steel Company Ltd. vs Azeez 1990 Kerala, a trade union leader obstructed work inside the factory for 5 hrs while protesting against the deputation of a workman to work another section. It was held that while in a factory, the worker must submit to the instructions given by his superiors. A trade union leader has no immunity against disobeying the orders. A trade union leader or any worker does not have any right by law to share managerial responsibilities. A trade union can espouse the cause of workers through legal ways but officials of a trade union cannot direct other workers individually or in general about how to do their work. They do not have the right to ask a worker to stop his work or otherwise obstruct the work of the establishment. An employer may deal with a person causing obstruction in work effectively.
In the case of P Mukundan and others vs Mohan Kandy Pavithran 1992 Kerala, it was held that strike per se is not an actionable wrong. Further, it was held that the trade union, its officers, and its members are immune against legal proceedings linked with the strike of workmen by the provisions of section 18.
In the leading case of Rohtas Industries Staff Union vs State of Bihar AIR 1963, it was held that employers do not have the right to claim damages against the employee participating in an illegal strike and thereby causing loss of production and business.
In the case of Simpson & Group Companies Workers & Staff Union vs Amco Batteries Ltd 1992 Karn., it was held that physical obstruction of movement of management officials, contractors, goods, or vehicles carrying raw materials, is not a trade union right or a fundamental right under art 19. Immunity under section 18 cannot be claimed for such activities. Right to picket is a very intangible right and it extends only up to the right of free movement of others. The methods of persuasion are limited to oral and visual and do not include physical obstruction of vehicles or persons.
______________________________________________________________________________________
© VIDHOON All Rights Reserved