The Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur recently invalidated a decision made by the Industrial Tribunal. This decision rejected an application from the Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union, filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application sought the rejection of an appeal filed by M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926. The rejection was based on the argument that the respondent company could not pursue two separate legal remedies for the same subject matter concerning the registration certificate.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding as the sole judge, stated, "While an individual has the right to select the legal forum for addressing their grievances, they cannot simultaneously choose two forums to seek the same remedy for the same issue. Allowing parallel legal proceedings may result in forum shopping or hunting, where a party who initially filed an application under Section 10 of the 1926 Act with the Registrar of Trade Union and did not secure interim relief may abandon that course of action and instead pursue an appeal before the Tribunal for the same matter. Such actions would be deemed an abuse of the legal process."

The petitioner Union's claim is that it obtained recognition as a registered union when the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions issued a certificate to that effect on August 29, 2018.

The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the respondent Company, feeling discontented and aggrieved by the certificate issued on August 29, 2018, submitted an application under Section 10 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 (referred to as the Act of 1926). This application is currently awaiting a decision from the Additional Registrar.

The Additional Registrar issued a notice to the petitioner, which the petitioner challenged by filing a Writ petition in the High Court. On October 3, 2018, an interim order was issued by the High Court, restraining the respondents from initiating any proceedings based on the show cause notice dated September 12, 2018.

The petitioner's legal representative argued that the respondent Company, without disclosing the previously mentioned details, filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, with the Industrial Tribunal. This appeal contested the very same registration certificate issued on August 29, 2018.

The petitioner then submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking the rejection of the mentioned appeal on the grounds that it was legally prohibited. However, the Tribunal dismissed this application in a contested order dated April 3, 2019, stating that the case involved a combination of factual and legal questions.

The legal representative representing the respondent Company argued that the appeal was not solely filed under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, but it was also submitted with the assistance of Section 9(I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to as the Act of 1947).

The legal representative of the respondent Company further contended that filing an appeal under Section 9(I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is permissible in response to any order issued by the Registrar. Therefore, according to this argument, there was no wrongdoing on the part of the respondents in pursuing an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated August 29, 2018, through which the petitioner Union was granted recognition as a registered Trade Union under Section 9 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926.

The High Court considered the following questions:

1. Whether the respondent Company can pursue two simultaneous legal remedies concerning the same registration certificate issued on August 29, 2018, through two distinct forums?

2. Whether the appeal is legally prohibited since it is not admissible against the order granting the Certificate of Registration?

The Court made the following observation: "An appeal under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, is permissible in cases where there is an order of refusal to register a Trade Union or an order for the withdrawal or cancellation of a registration certificate. In this particular case, the Registrar did not refuse the registration of the petitioner Trade Union, nor was the Registration Certificate revoked or withdrawn. Therefore, an appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 is not admissible in this context."

The Court also observed that: "While the petitioner Union was indeed registered under Chapter II B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it's important to note that the registration under Section 9 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, is distinct. Therefore, filing an appeal under Section 9(I) of the Act of 1947 is not legally permissible in this case."

The Court based its decision on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 120, Jai Singh v. Union of India (1977) 1 SCC 1, and Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Volkart Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 642. 

Therefore, the Court overturned the challenged order issued on April 3, 2019, by the Tribunal and rejected the appeal submitted by the respondent under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, deeming it "not maintainable."

Case: Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union v. M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited and Anr, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8994/2019.

Read/Download Order: Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union Vs.M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited, and Ors.