All Escorts Employees Union vs The State Of Haryana

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12843-12844 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 27020-27021 OF 2015)

ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2) The appellant-Union, known as All Escorts Employees Union,

was formed way back in the year 1968. It is a registered Trade

Union which was representing the employees of Escorts Group of

Industries and is duly recognised by the employers as well.

Some of the Establishments of Escorts Group were Escorts Ltd., Signature Not Verified

Escorts Yamaha Ltd., Escorts JCB Ltd., Escorts Class Ltd. and Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2017.11.11 13:26:26 IST Reason:

Escorts Hospital. It is an undisputed fact that the workmen from

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 1 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) all these industries were members of the appellant-Union. As far

as Escorts Yamaha Ltd. is concerned, it was a joint venture of

Escorts Management and Yamaha Motor Company, Japan. In

the year 2001, this company was taken over by Yamaha Motor

Company, Japan and its name was changed to Yamaha Motor

India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Yamaha’).

After this separation, the workmen working in Yamaha ceased to

be the members of the appellant-Union, in view of Clause 4 of its

Constitution which spelled out who could be the members of the

Union. With an intention to take them within its fold again, the

appellant-Union amended Clause 4 of its Constitution. Clause 4

deals with ‘Membership’. As per the amended clause, workers

employed in any erstwhile Escorts concern at Haryana are

entitled to become the members of the appellant-Union. The

aforesaid Clause 4 of appellant’s constitution was amended in

June, 2001. This amendment was sent to the Registrar, Trade

Union, Haryana for its record and approval. The Registrar, Trade

Union did not approve the amendment. Challenging the decision

of the Registrar, Trade Union, writ petition was filed in the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana by the appellant-Union. This writ

petition has also been dismissed by the High Court vide

impugned judgment dated April 20, 2015.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 2 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

3) In the challenge laid to the view taken by the High Court, the

question of law which is raised by the appellant-Union is as to

whether a Trade Union can have a membership of the workmen

from other industries? To put it otherwise, whether a Trade Union

can have its members who are working in different

establishments or industries enabling that Trade Union to

espouse their cause?

4) In addition to the aforesaid facts noticed at a glance, it is

desirable to set out other facts also so that the factual narration is

complete:

The appellant-Union is a registered Trade Union having

Registration No. 75 of 1968. It was formed and got registered

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act’) in the year 1968. Its registered office is located at 29,

Neelam Chowk, Faridabad. The Union is duly recognised by the

Escorts Group of Industries. The Constitution of the

appellant-Union was duly approved by the Registrar of Trade

Unions. Clause 4 of the Union’s Constitution, as it originally

stood, reads as follows:

“Membership “Any workers who are employed in any Escorts concern at Faridabad and agree to follow the rules and regulation of the Union can become a member after Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 3 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) filling the membership form and by paying the membership fee monthly or annually. Any member who leaves the job of any of Escorts concern at Faridabad will cease to be a member of the Union.”

5) In the month of August, 2001 the establishment manufacturing

two wheeler motorcycles under the brand name of ‘Yamaha’ got

segregated from the Escorts Group of Industries. Thus, it

became a 100% subsidiary of ‘Yamaha Motor Company, Japan’.

In view of this separation, the Escorts Group of Companies

ceased to have any concern with the manufacturing of motorcycle

and ownership or management of motorcycle manufacturing unit

which is now exclusively with the ‘Yamaha Motor Company,

Japan’ named in India as ‘Yamaha Motor India Private Limited’.

The Escorts Company in fact does not have any share-holding

with it.

6) Since Clause 4 of the appellant’s Constitution provides

membership to those workers who are employed in any Escorts

concern at Faridabad, all the workers of Motor Cycle

Manufacturing Unit who became workers of Yamaha also ceased

to be the members of the appellant-Union inasmuch as, as per

the aforesaid Clause 4 of the Constitution, workers of other

industries cannot be the members of the appellant-Union.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 4 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

7) The appellant-Union avers that even after the change of

employment, the workers of Yamaha continued to be members of

the appellant-Union. The appellant-Union even entered into

settlements with the employer Yamaha on behalf of its workers.

So much so, deductions from workers’ salary towards

membership subscription of the appellant-Union continued. As

per the management of Yamaha, this happened due to the

reason that it was kept in dark about the fact that its workers had

ceased to be the members of the appellant-Union. Be that as it

may, nothing turns on that. Fact remains that as per unamended

Clause 4 of the appellant’s Constitution, workmen of Yamaha did

not remain the members of the appellant. Therefore, in order to

bring the workers of Yamaha within their fold by giving them

membership, the appellant-Union decided to amend Clause 4 of

its Constitution by substituting the existing Clause 4 with the

following Clause:

“Membership Any workman who is employed in any of the industry originally established by the Escorts group and agrees to follow the rules, regulation and objectives of the Union can become a member after depositing the requisite subscription fee. His membership would stand cancel upon his retirement from the Industry or upon his submitting the resignation.

Clarification The change of name of an Industry established by the Escorts group or change of management would not

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 5 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) affect the membership of the Union.”

8) The amendment was sent to the Registrar, Trade Unions,

Haryana for its record and approval. The said amendment was

not accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions on the ground that

there is no commonness of purpose with the current workers of

the group. To put it straight, according to the Registrar, the

appellant-Union cannot be said to be a Trade Union vis-a-vis

Yamaha and that it can only function vis-a-vis Escorts Ltd. The

operative portion of the order of the Registrar rejecting the

amendment reads as under:

“If the industrial unit(s) manufacturing a particular kind of items, say agricultural items, happen to be segregated from the Escorts Group of Industries then the workers working in such unit(s) would automatically cease to continue as members of the present union under the existing Rule 4. However, under the proposed amending Rule 4 read with explanation appended thereto, such workers may continue to remain members of the union despite the fact that after such segregation they cannot have any commonness of interests with other workers of the Escorts Group of Industries. Such segregation has in fact taken place. By the time of submission of present request by the union on 25.06.2001 the Escorts Group of Industries used to manufacture two-wheeler motor cycles. But in August 2001 the unit manufacturing this two wheeler motor cycles under the brand name of ‘Yamaha’ segregated from the Escorts Group of Industries and has become a 100% subsidiary of “Yamaha Motor Company, Japan”. Since August, 2001, the Escorts Group of Industries has totally ceased to have any concern with the motor cycle manufacturing. After August, 2001 the Escorts Group of Industries has not been manufacturing motor cycles. The ownership and management of motor cycle manufacturing unit is now

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 6 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) of Yamaha Motor Company, Japan and the Escorts do not have any kind of concern therewith. The workers working in the motor cycle manufacturing have thus legally ceased to be the members of the present union by virtue of existing Rule 4 of the constitution. They do not have any commonness of interests with the workers of Escorts Group of Industries. But if the proposed amendment is allowed, such workers, if they so like, would continue to remain members of this union despite here being no commonness of interests. Such a provision would be contrary to the above said provisions of the Act.”

9) The said view of the Registrar, Trade Union, has been upheld by

the single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court.

It may, however, be pointed out that during pendency of the writ

petition, a further amendment was made in Clause 4 on

November 27, 2007, which was approved by the Registrar, Trade

Unions. The said amendment clause reads as follows:

“Any worker who is employed in any Escorts concern at Faridabad and agrees to follow the Rules, Regulations and Discipline of the Union can become a Member after filling Membership form and by paying the Membership Fee 1 rupee monthly or 12 rupees annually. Any member who leaves the job of any Escorts concern at Faridabad will be ceased to be the member of the Union.

Now the annual subscription would be Rs.100/-. The employees working in the combined companies of Yamaha, JCB, Class, Fortis and Eco Auto company Escorts (JCB) have remained the bona fide members of All Escorts Employees Union. They can still retain their Membership by paying the annual subscription.”

10) The said amendment, however, was not brought to the

notice of the High Court. When the appellant-Union came to

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 7 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) know about this amendment, they filed a review petition enclosing

the said amendment. However, the High Court rejected the

review petition on the ground that “No review can, thus, be made

on the basis of material which was not the subject matter of

consideration”.

11) Impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the

writ appeal of the appellant herein reveals that it examined the

provisions of Sections 6(e), 9-A and 22 of the Act on the basis of

which it came to the conclusion that there has to be a direct

connectivity between the industry and its workers. Para 13 of the

judgment captures the essence of reasoning given by the High

Court which is reproduced below:

“13. The statutory Scheme thus repeatedly refers to the direct connectivity between the industry where the worker or employee is engaged and the Trade Union in which such worker or employee is a member. The existence of commonness and relationship is therefore, sine qua non for the constitution of a Trade Union or enrolment of its members and office bearers. To say it differently, there cannot be a Trade Union for collective bargaining in a trade dispute where the Trade Union is not connected at all with the industry.”

12) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Union, pointing out the connection of the workers of

Yamaha with the appellant-Union, submitted that all the

workers/employees working in different units in Escorts Group of

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 8 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) Companies including the unit manufacturing motorcycles, were

members of the appellant-Union. He emphasised that even after

the segregation of the said unit, workers of Yamaha continued to

be the members of the appellant-Union and were also paying

their subscription regularly. Yamaha had even recognised the

appellant-Union as the management of Yamaha had entered into

the settlements with the appellant-Union on June 4, 2010 and

October 29, 2013 under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. He referred to those settlements which are annexed with

the SLP Paper Book. Not only this, Yamaha has even been

collecting the membership subscription of its workers and

remitting the same to the appellant-Union. According to him, this

factual position was sufficient to hold that the appellant-Union had

right to represent the workers of Yamaha and, therefore, the

amendment in question could not have been rejected.

13) On legal aspects, submission of Mr. Parikh was that the

power given to the Registrar, Trade Union under Section 8 of the

Act is an administrative power and not a quasi-judicial/judicial

one. Thus, impugned order of the Registrar was in excess of his

jurisdiction, contended the counsel. He also referred to the

definition of “Trade Dispute” contained in Section 2(g) as well as

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 9 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) “Trade Union” incorporated in Section 2(h) of the Act from where

he sought to draw sustenance in his argument that Trade Union

can be formed for regulating relations between workmen and its

employers; workmen and workmen or employers and employers.

Submission was that it did not limit to the workers of a particular

industry/establishment only. Another aspect from where he

endeavoured to draw support was that right to form Trade Union

was protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and,

therefore, if a person fulfils the requirements of becoming a

member of a Trade Union and a Trade Union is accepting such

person as a member, his right of joining a Trade Union cannot be

denied in law.

14) Commenting upon and questioning the reasoning given by

the High Court, he submitted that the scheme of Sections 6(e),

9-A and 22 of the Act nowhere confines to the workers of the

establishment alone and even outsiders can be the members. He

argued in this behalf that by amendment, the appellant-Union has

broadened the scope of its membership clause. The amendment

allowed workers of Yamaha to join the appellant-Union. The

choice is with the workers of Yamaha. They may join the Trade

Union or they may not. Even those workers who were members

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 10 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) of the appellant-Union before Yamaha was formed, they may

continue as members, or they may resign from membership. By

amendment, the appellant-Union has only clarified the

membership clause. The fact, however, is that those workers

who were members of appellant-Union continued their

membership even after the formation of Yamaha. The

appellant-Union, therefore, remained connected with Escorts

Group of Industries and Yamaha by having their workers actually

engaged therein as its members. Such amendment cannot be

said to be violative of any provision of the Act.

15) Stiff resistance is put by the learned counsel appearing for

the respondents, who justified the approach of the Registrar,

Trade Union, which has received the imprimatur of the High Court

as well. Referring to the same very definition of “Trade Union”,

the learned counsel argued that the analysis of the definition of

the Trade Union clearly shows that the purpose of Trade Union is

to maintain balance, harmony in the relations of the persons

involved in industrial activity such as process and production.

The purpose of the Trade Union is not only to secure harmony

between employers and workmen but also it is intended to

improve peaceful relations between employers and workers.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 11 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) According to her, the definition further indicates that the Trade

Union is formed primarily for the following two purposes. Firstly,

for regulating the relations between (a) workmen and employers,

or (b) workmen and workmen, or (c) employers and employers.

Secondly, for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of

any trade or business of its members. Trade Union is regarded

essentially a tool for collective bargaining between employer and

employee. However, it was not meant to disrupt the entire

industry by way of strike or other such activity.

16) She also referred to the amendment made in the Act in the

year 2001 which are aimed at checking multiplicity of Trade

Unions, thereby promoting internal democracy and facilitating in

the ordinary growth and regulation of Trade Unions. In this hue,

she argued that in the Principal Act, it is provided in Section 4 that

any seven members can make an application for registration.

Whereas under Amendment Act, 2001, that seven persons

applying for registration must be workmen engaged or employed

in the establishment or an industry. As a result of these

amendments, the Trade Unions were prohibited from introducing

members not connected with the establishment or industry with

which they intend to negotiate for workers right. The right to

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 12 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) negotiate as well as the protection from the civil and criminal

liability is available to only those who are working with the

particular Establishment or Industry. Third parties not connected

with the establishment or industry should not be allowed to use

the Trade Unions to further their vested interests.

17) Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that there

were many registered Trade Unions of general nature prior to the

amendment in 2001 mentioned above which were not connected

with specific Industry as required in Section 4 and its proviso.

There were also instances of industries like in the present case of

Escorts Group whereby number of units had a common union but

got fragmented with the advent of liberalization into the hands of

the respective foreign collaborators. The commonness of interest

was only the organisation as a social organisation its huge funds

and assets but the commonness of professional interest between

the workers of each unit were totally divergent. Union consisting

of workers of other industries forces the management into

submission and acceptance of unnecessary interference in

normal functioning of the units. The very proof in the present

case is that the workers employed in the unit of Yamaha situated

in nearby location in Uttar Pradesh formed a separate Union and

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 13 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) got registered with the Registrar, Trade Union, Uttar Pradesh.

Whereas many of the States have their own and different law on

industrial relations. The hegemony and malice thereof is proved

by the fact that the Yamaha unit in Faridabad did not (or could

not) form a separate Union when even the management is

supporting it and whey they continue to function under the Union

of workers of another industry. Therefore, any disturbance in the

representative character like in the present case will obviously

have far reaching and damaging consequences even within the

Union of different units and the industrial relations therein.

18) Referring to the aforesaid scheme of the Act, with particular

emphasis on amendments carried out in the year 2001, learned

counsel further argued that the right of membership of any

organisation cannot be in isolation without inter se connection of

rights and responsibilities under the law. Unless the rights

percolate into a legally valid mechanism to secure them under

other laws like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such

membership would be theoretical and in contradiction of the

actual purpose qua the employment in a particular industry.

Therefore, the conflicts emanating there from would be fatal for

the very relationship of employer and employee thus defeating

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 14 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) the very purpose of maintaining orderly Trade Union without the

hegemony of a particular Union or unnecessary interference by a

minority Union for securing the rights of the workers. So to say

any change in the interpretation of the object and structure of the

working of the Act may result in the possibility of an unrelated

Union in ruining the industry and also a possibility of a minority

Union being misused by the management to manipulate the

industrial relations in the unit to the disadvantage of the workers.

Therefore, the objects and purposes of the amendment of

Sections 4, 9-A and 22 in the year 2001 in maintaining a balance

in the functioning of Trade Unions qua the industry. She also

submitted that rights given to the workmen to form an association

are not the same as rights given to the individual of forming such

associations and, therefore, Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of

India cannot be invoked by the appellant-Union, more so, when

law permits the State to impose reasonable restriction on such a

right.

19) Commenting upon the amendment to Clause 4 of the

Constitution of appellant’s Union carried out by the general body

of the appellant-Union in its meeting on November 27, 2007,

which was approved by the Registrar, she submitted that it was

an inadvertent error on the part of the Registrar because of the Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 15 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) reason that the appellant had concealed the material fact about

the rejection of earlier similar application by the Registrar,

therefore, the approval was withdrawn vide order dated October

21, 2015 after following due procedure.

20) Management of Yamaha, though not made party in these

proceedings by the appellant, was allowed to intervene. It has

also defended the decision of the Registrar, as approved by the

High Court. Learned counsel appearing for Yamaha submitted

that after separation from Escorts Group, on June 23, 2001, a

notice was issued by the Management of Yamaha to all their

workmen informing them that as Yamaha is not concerned with

Escorts Group of Companies directly or indirectly any more they

cannot grant recognition to All Escorts Employees Union i.e. the

appellant-Union herein. Thereafter, the workmen of Surajpur

Plant of appellant company, who were also part of the

appellant-Union, decided to form a separate Union. The workers

of Surajpur Plant of Yamaha are now being represented by a

separate Union namely “Yamaha Motor Employees Union”, which

were being earlier represented by the appellant-Union. The said

Union is duly registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur,

Uttar Pradesh, having Registration Number 7179. Learned

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 16 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) counsel also argued that there was no commonality of interest

between the workers of Escorts and that of Yamaha and,

therefore, it was not open to the appellant to give membership to

the workers of Yamaha. It was also argued that Escorts and

Yamaha are in different trade and there are practical difficulties in

dealing with appellant-Union which is essentially dealing with the

management of Escorts Limited. It was also argued that by

referring to approval of Clause 4 by the Registrar vide its order

dated June 18, 2009, the appellant-Union had suppressed the

material fact that by subsequent order dated October 21, 2015,

the Registrar had recalled the aforesaid order and rejected the

amendment. The appellant was, therefore, guilty of suppression

of material fact. It was also submitted that some settlements

were entered into by Yamaha with the appellant-Union as the

appellant-Union kept Yamaha under dark and mislead it by

claiming that workmen of Yamaha were the members of the

appellant-Union and it had right to represent them. Regarding the

scheme provided under the Act, learned counsel reiterated the

submissions of the Registrar as well as reasoning of the High

Court.

21) As per Clause 4 as originally stood, only those workmen

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 17 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) who were employed in Escorts Group of Industries could become

members of the appellant-Union. This Clause also made it clear

that the membership of a workman who ceases to be employee

of Escorts Group shall automatically be terminated. It was, thus,

clear that the appellant-Union wanted only those workmen to be

its members who are the employees of the Establishment in

question, namely, the Escorts Group. After the hiving off

motorcycle manufacturing unit from the Escorts Group and take

over thereof by Yamaha, this unit has no common interest with

the workers of the Escorts Group. This becomes clear as the

workers of the two plants of the said motorcycle unit were taken

over by Yamaha vide notice dated June 23, 2001. These workers

have thereafter become the workers of Yamaha. Thus, by virtue

of original/unamended Clause 4, they no longer remain members

of the appellant-Union.

22) From the definition of Trade Union contained in Section 2(h)

of the Act, it becomes apparent that such a Union is formed

primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between

workmen and employers (which is the instant case) or it can be

between workmen and workmen or between employers and

employers. It includes any federation of two or more Trade

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 18 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) Unions also though we are not concerned with it. When we keep

in mind the aforesaid objective of formation of a Trade Union,

namely, regulating the relations between the workmen and its

employer, normally such a Union of workmen would be of those

workmen who work in a particular Establishment. This gets

further strengthened when we peruse the definition of Trade

Dispute contained in Section 2(g) of the Act. The Trade Unions of

workmen while regulating their relations between the employers

would normally have negotiations representing its workmen

before the employer and in case those negotiations do not result

in amicable settlement or resolution of disputes, such Trade

Unions would raise trade dispute with its employer. Section 6 of

the Act mandates a Trade Union to have its

Constitution/Bye-Laws/Rules by incorporation of the provisions

contained therein i.e. under Section 6. Clause (e) deals with

admission of ordinary members and specifically provides that

ordinary members should be those persons who are actually

engaged or employed in an industry with which the Trade Union

is connected. This provision implicitly confines the membership

to those who are the workmen of the industry where they are

employed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 19 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)

23) The moot question here is as to whether such a Trade

Union which primarily has the membership of the worker of

particular Establishment or industry can broaden its scope by

opening the membership even to those who are not the

employees of the Establishment in respect of which the said

Trade Union has been formed.

24) At this juncture, it becomes pertinent to note that the

workers of Yamaha have formed their own separate Union,

known as Yamaha Motor Employees Union. This Union is duly

registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)

having Registration No. 7179. It is this Union which now stands

recognised by the Management of Yamaha. In these

circumstances, the very purpose in amending Clause 4 in the

manner it seeks to do stands frustrated. In any case, Clause 4

was amended in the year 2007 and that amendment has been

approved by the Registrar, Trade Union. Therefore, issue of

amendment in Clause 4, as carried out in June, 2001, becomes a

non-issue.

25) In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to deal with the

issue raised in these appeals as the issue does not survive.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 20 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) Thus, leaving the question of law open, these appeals are

dismissed.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 21 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) (REVISED) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015)

ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 14-09-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Padikh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR

Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

Application for impleadment stands disposed of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 22 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015) ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844/2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 27020-27021/2015)

ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 14-09-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Padikh, Adv.

Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Uday Manaktala, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR

Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017 Page 23 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27020-27021 of 2015)