Important To Hold Referendum For Multiple Trade Unions To Determine Which Union Commands Bargaining Power: Kerala High Court

Justice N.Nagaresh observed,

“Collective bargaining is the mode of work of Trade Unions. It is to be ensured that the Trade Unions which takes up the issues concerning the service conditions of workmen truly represent the workmen employed in the establishment. When in an establishment there are more than one registered Trade Union, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the Trade Union which negotiates has as its members minority of the workmen / employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employer and such a Union, may not be acceptable to the majority and may not result industrial peace.”

The petitioner, Fact United Employees Liberation is a registered Trade Union of workmen at the FACT.

The writ petition was filed aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's request to conduct a Trade Union Referendum through a secret ballot in FACT's Cochin Division to recognize representative Trade Unions.

The FACT argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because there was no infringement of fundamental rights. They clarified that FACT does not have a statutory obligation to conduct Trade Union Referendums. Additionally, it was noted that five Trade Unions are already recognized in FACT's Cochin Division. FACT also mentioned that a Referendum through a secret ballot was conducted in their Udyogamandal Division, where out of the four participating Trade Unions, three secured 20% or more of the total votes.

The Court noted that the Referendum by secret ballot had been conducted in FACT's Udyogamandal Division but not in Cochin Division. The Court stated that the representative character of Fact United Employees Liberation functioning in the Cochin Division has to be determined by a Referendum through a secret ballot.

As such the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the FACT to hold a Referendum by secret ballot in the Cochin Division.

Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates R.Sanjith, C.S.Sindhu Krishnah

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K.Malini, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 1071 OF 2024

Case Title: Fact United Employees Liberation V The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 551