Samsung Opposes Trade Union's Plea In Madras High Court For Registration After Company's Name, Says Union Has Political Affiliations

Justice RN Manjula, on Tuesday, allowed an impleading petition by the company in an ongoing proceeding by the union seeking its registration. The court noted that in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to include Samsung as a party to the proceedings.

“Before passing any order as requested by the 1st Respondent (Trade Union), in the interest of justice and to enable the party to raise their objection and for the 1st respondent to raise counter objection, the proposed party should be included as a party,” the court ordered on Samsung's impleading petition.

The trade union approached the court seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Union to register the union. The union had argued that since the Registrar of Trade Union has caused a delay in registering the union within the stipulated time without any reason, it has caused great prejudice to the union. The union had contended that it had a right to be registered under the Trade Union Act of 1926 and the Registrar should uphold the constitutional values and should comply with the provisions of the Act by registering the Trade Union.

On Tuesday, Samsung informed the court that it had filed an impleading petition to be made a party in the proceeding. Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan, appearing for Samsung informed the court that the trade union had a political association as it was backed by the CITU and Samsung, being an international company did not want to be associated with any political party. Rajagopalan also informed the court that the company had already incurred a loss of 100 million dollars since the workers had been protesting for over a month without registering the union.

“They have a right to register but they don't have a fundamental right to use my (Samsung's) name. We cannot have any association with a political party. We're an international company. They have even went on to strike which has caused us a loss of 100 million. But I'm not going into all that since they have returned to work,” Rajagopalan said.

He also contended that while the Union had a fundamental right to be registered, it did not have any right to use the company's name. He also submitted that the company's reputation would also be affected if the trade union, having a political association, was permitted to use the company's name.

Rajagopalan also argued that the company's name was a registered trademark that it was using for its products and the Union could not use this name. He submitted that the Union was free to use any other name. Further, Rajagopalan argued that since any order passed by the court in the main petition would bind the company, it was a necessary party to the proceedings and its objections needed to be heard.

Senior Advocate NGR Prasad, appearing for the Union objected to the impleading petition and submitted that the management of the company was not a necessary party in a case seeking to register the Union. He submitted that while registering a Union, the authorities merely had to see if all the requirements were complied with and there was no provision in law which provided for considering the objections of the management.

Prasad also submitted that as per the Trademark Act, a party was prohibited from using a registered trademark for business. In the present case, he submitted that the Union was merely seeking registration with the company's name and was not engaging in any business. He also submitted that there were numerous judgments wherein the courts held that there was no problem in using the name of the management for registering the trade union.

After hearing the parties with respect to the impleading petition, the court noted that it was appropriate to implead the company and directed the Registry to make appropriate corrections. Since the counsel informed that the next conciliation meeting was to be conducted on 7^th November, the court directed the case to be posted after 11^th November.

Case Title: P Ellan v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP No. 28894 of 2024