Kerala High Court Ruling: Can Trade Unions Hoist Flags on Employer's Property?

Kerala High Court Ruling on Trade Union Flags

The Kerala High Court, in a writ petition filed by Kerafibertex International (P) Ltd., has held that a trade union has no right to hoist flags on the property of the management. The business premise is situated at KINFRA Park, and the land has been leased to it by KINFRA. The Kerafibertex Employees Association put up flag masts and hoisted flags in front of the establishment. A writ petition has been filed against the Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association for short).

The High Court accepted the petition by holding that a trade union has no right to hoist flags on the property belonging to the management and it wants to remove the same. It was further observed that while there should be industrial peace in every industry, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of the management. The court also held that unions cannot unilaterally dictate terms in the name of industrial peace. This is a hundred percent export-oriented unit, and naturally, the customers of the petitioner-company would be foreigners. When they visit the business premises of the petitioner and see such flags, they may become apprehensive about the petitioner's ability to fulfill their export commitments on time, especially considering the industrial climate in the state due to an excess of trade union activities.

In any event, no union has the right to hoist flags on the property belonging to the management when the management objects to it. The 1st respondent has explicitly stated that they wish to remove the flag masts and flags and will do so with appropriate help from the authorities concerned. In the above circumstances, the court directs the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to remove all flag masts and flags of all unions from the properties belonging to them. If any union objects, the 1st respondent shall seek assistance from the relevant Circle Inspector of Police, who, upon the production of a certified copy of this judgment, will provide the necessary support for the removal of the flag masts and flags. The unions are prohibited from erecting any flag masts or hoisting flags on the property of the 1st respondent in the future. Should this occur, the same directive will apply to such actions.

Dear Mukesh ji, Thank you for your insightful input. Could you please provide us with the case number and citation for our reference and records?

Regards,
R P Srivastava, Chhindwara

Dear Mukesh, thank you for sharing the important information. Now let me share my personal views.

Violation of Fundamental Rights

Not allowing the approved union to hoist their flag is tantamount to a violation of fundamental rights. The verdict states that, "Admittedly, this is a hundred percent export-oriented unit. Naturally, the customers of the petitioner-company would be foreigners. When they come to the business premises of the petitioner and see such flags, naturally they would be afraid to do business with the petitioner, getting suspicious about the capability of the petitioner to fulfill their export commitment in time, knowing about the industrial climate in the State on account of an overdose of trade union activities."

This is ridiculous. If the trade union flag is an eyesore, then these foreigners should be informed that the very concept of trade unions was born in Western countries and not in India. Every single Western country is unionized. Then why this objection in India?

Impact on Industrial Atmosphere

Today, by hoisting the flag, the industrial atmosphere gets vitiated. Tomorrow the management will say that by joining a trade union itself, their atmosphere will get vitiated. If the management-union relations are so feeble, then possibly they should be allowed to collapse rather than propping them up through court verdicts.

Trade Union Movement and Democracy

The trade union movement is part of democracy. If we ban trade union movement activities, then how are we different from China? The trade union movement is important because the individual worker does not have a voice. A trade union is a collective voice. Trade unions have many times expressed diametrically opposite views. But then democracy demands acceptance of opposing views as well. By giving such verdicts, are the courts becoming conduits of autocracy?

Since the verdict is in its favor, the management of the company may think that what they have done is proper. But then let me remind them of what's happening in Maruti's Manesar plant. The accumulated anger one day blows the lid off.

Possibility of Reversal by Supreme Court

I feel that if the union approaches the Supreme Court, the judgment could be reversed. Verdicts of lower courts are not gospels. They can be challenged, and this one is no exception.

While writing the above views, let me clarify that I am not a proponent of trade unionism. Nevertheless, in democracy, no one's rights should be subjugated. That is far more important.

Regards,

Dinesh V Divekar

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."

Thank you for sharing the Kerala High Court judgment as well as the views by Mr. Dinesh. In my view, the Union does not have any authority to hoist a flag on company property. Yes, they definitely have the right to unionize, but according to the Trade Union Act, they can only unionize. Hoisting a flag on company premises is not within their rights.

Regards,

Does the TU Act explicitly mention that a trade union does not have the authority to hoist a flag? Or is it that nothing is mentioned in the Act, and this is the interpretation of the court?

A flag is only a symbol of the activities. How can activities that are legally tenable be allowed but not their symbol? Is it not contradictory?

Theoretically, the land where the company is located could belong to the management. It could be owned or on lease. But then, this very land they use is for promoting their business with and through the workers. Therefore, ownership apart, this very land belongs to workers as well.

In fact, from the theory of management standpoint, the whole incident hardly merits judicial intervention. The real challenge to management is survival in the cutthroat competition. Competition is within India or from China. I doubt whether their vision goes beyond the horizon. Otherwise, management would not have wasted their precious time on these frivolous activities.

The 21st-century management style demands treating employees as business partners and not adversaries. Companies have become corporations and attained glorious heights because of their employees. When companies nurture their employees, groom their employees, and show faith in them, the union activities become redundant; hence, the question of raising the flag itself does not arise at all.

Regards,
DVD

Normally, the unions hoist their flags in front of the factory. The factory management typically leaves some space in front of the factory for this purpose. In that area, several union flags are displayed, and their notice boards are put up.

Union Office and Negotiations

In the case of recognized unions, the management will generally provide an office inside the premises for discussions and meetings from time to time. This is part of a give-and-take policy aimed at fostering negotiation and settlement. Without such a policy, it is difficult to maintain cordial relations. We must act according to the situations to maintain harmonious relations. There is no hard and fast rule. After all, they are our business partners.

Regards,
D. Gurumurthy
Advocate/HR-IR Consultant

After going through the updates provided by Mr. Mukesh and Mr. Dinesh, whom I thank for making the subject lively, what I have understood is while Mr. Mukesh provided the legal perspective of the rights of a trade union, Mr. Dinesh provided the social perspective of the same. For any industry to grow, both the capital and the labor need to cooperate, and it is nobody's guess that one cannot survive without the other. Therefore, there is a need to balance both perspectives—legal and social—in the sense that both can exercise their rights with some reasonable restraints so that there will be cooperation but not conflicts.

Should the Trade Union Act Need Modifications?

Should the Trade Union Act need some modifications to enumerate specifically how the employer and the union shall conduct? Other views may enliven the debate.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai