RSS |   Samvad   |   Vital Infotech Ltd.

August     Last updated: August 12  5:00 p.m.

THE High Court of Delhi heard the arguments of both BMS and INTUC on 6-7-2000 in the writ petition (No. 5204/99) filed by BMS challenging the Order, dated 2-7-99 passed by Justice N.C. Kochhar (Retd) and ongoing verification of membership of Central Trade Union Organisations (CTUOs). While disposing of the petition, Hon'ble Justice Madan B. Lokur quashed Justice Kochhar's order and remanded the matter back to him to determine the question whether there is a need for a fresh verification, if so, the date of reckoning. Justice Kochhar had earlier passed order fixing 31-12-1997 as the reckoning date for verification of membership.

Since Independence INTUC remained the largest CTUO for about five decades. In the verification of 1968 and 1980 also INTUC emerged as No. 1 organisation. The verification was conducted by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) [CLC(C)]. But no other organisation approached court of law for any matter. In 1980 verification BMS was adjudged as the second largest CTUO. There has been a standing committee on verification of membership, constituted by the Ministry of Labour. The Standing Committee, chaired by the Chief Labour Commissioner, consists of members of 12 labour organisations, namely, BMS, INTUC, CITU, HMS, AITUC, UTUC(LS) UTUC, NFITU, TUCC, NLO, HMKP and IFFTU. It is this committee that decides the verification procedure, date of reckoning, etc. All is well that ends well. But the problem arose when INTUC lost No. 1 position and BMS emerged as the largest organisation in 1989 verification. According to the notification, dated 27-12-96 issued by the Ministry of Labour, the final verified membership of various

CTUOs as on 31-12-89 was as follows :-

1	. BMS	31,16,564
2	INTUC	26,92,388
3	CITU	17,75,220
4	HMS	14,80,963
5	AITUC	9,38,486
6	UTUC(LS)	8,43,256
7	UTUC	5,84,523
8	NFITU	5,29,782
9	TUCC	2,30,139
10	NLO	1,38,877
11	HMKP	3,516
12	IFFTU	428
	Total	1,23,34,142

INTUC and some other organisation could not digest the consistent and phenomenal growth of BMS. The ever-increase of BMS membership is but natural because the workers believe that it is the only non-political and genuine CTUO, which can render justice to them. But instead of seeing the writing on wall, INTUC filed a writ petition (No. 1258/97) in Delhi High Court in 1997 seeking annulment of the declaration of final results of 1989 verification on various grounds including one that there was extraordinary delay in declaration of final results. They did not seek for fresh verification in the petition. When the court was not pleased to stay the final results, INTUC began to put forth strange arguments, which were supported by AITUC, CITU and HMS. They argued that as per the verification procedure, verification was to be undertaken once in four years, that fresh verification has fallen due as the previous verification was held on 31-12-1989.

They also argued that there should be a retired High Court judge as the Chairman of Standing Committee instead of CLC (C). On 19-5-98 when the matter came up before Hon'ble Justice Jaspal Singh, in the absence of BMS counsel, the counsels of some CTUOs, present in the Court, reached an agreement. According to the consent order, CLC(C) shall be the Chairman of Standing Committee and any dispute not being resolved by the Standing Committee shall be referred to Justice N.C. Kochhar (Retd.) and that he shall be paid honorarium of Rs. 15,000 per month by the Ministry of Labour from the date of first reference till the process of verification is completed. There was no consensus among CTUOs about the date of reckoning for fresh verification.

Then the matter was referred to Justice Kochhar. BMS argued before him on 28-6-99 that though the reckoning date of previous verification was 31-12-89, the final results were declared belatedly on 27-12-96 as such fresh verification falls due only after 27-12-2000, i.e. after four years as per the agreed procedure. BMS also stated that however if at all fresh verification was to be undertaken, the latest date, i.e., 31-12-98, should be taken as the reckoning date. UTUC, UTUC (LS), TUCC, NFITU also supported it. While INTUC, HMS, CITU were in favour of 31-12-97. AITUC insisted upon 31-12-96. Finally Justice Kochhar gave his decision on 2-7-99 that fresh verification be held on 31-12-97. In the given situation BMS moved the High Court.

The decision of Shri Kochhar was challenged. On 6-7-2000 BMS argued before the High Court that fresh verification has not fallen due and that the issues framed by the Ministry of Labour in the meeting held on 6-4-98 under the chairmanship of Labour Minister have not been resolved yet. The issues are : (1) whether there is a need for fresh verification (2) if so, what should be the date of reckoning? After hearing arguments of counsels of both, BMS and INTUC, the Hon'ble High Court delivered aforesaid judgement. The Ministry of Labour strangely remained neutral all through.

It has not called spade a spade. Now the questions remain before INTUC are : Who was responsible for the inordinate delay in declaration of final results of 1989-verification? Did INTUC, at any point of time, demand for immediate declaration of final results? Has INTUC lost confidence in CLC (C) and Ministry of Labour just because it lost No. 1 position? Is INTUC prepared at least now to see the writing on wall? QF or OF? The verification of membership is intended to give representation to CTUOs on various national and ILO committees. As per the verified membership of 1989, the Ministry of Labour has been allotting slots to CTUOs on the committees. BMS, being the largest, is getting more slots, which INTUC used to have earlier. But INTUC and AITUC/CITU comrades are jealously making propaganda that the Government is showing undue favour to BMS. They have brought to fore a peculiar “quotient formula” (QF). They contend that slots should be given according to the formula. The questions remain before the protagonists of QF are:- Where was this formula during the last five decades? Should QF be not called of (Opportunist Formula)?