How Should I Handle Union Demands for Court Duty Pay? Seeking Legal and Industry Advice

Hi seniors, I have recently joined a company with a registered union. They have demanded payment for being on duty when there is a hearing at the labor court. The case is about declaring "Protected Workmen" against the company. They have cited and presented evidence of this being done by previous HR managers. I personally believe that this is not within the company's work scope; therefore, being on duty is out of the question.

Seeking Legal and Industry Guidance

Kindly suggest what should be done in accordance with the law or normal industry practice.

Regards,
SIA

Protected Workmen and Duty Leave

Once a workman or a few workmen are declared 'protected,' they will automatically get the right to duty leave for attending negotiations, conciliation, etc. Therefore, you have to make a decision based on the facts. If the petitioner is the company and the workmen are respondents, naturally, it is in the company's interest that they should appear, and the company is expected to ensure their presence. In such a scenario, they will be entitled to claim duty leave. The same should apply when the company is the respondent. Therefore, it is advisable to grant them duty leave.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

Please ensure the number of union members attending the labor court is pre-intimated to the concerned plant head. Only the required members should be allowed to attend the court as needed.

Legal Provisions for Leave with Wages for Trade Union Office Bearers

Is there any legal provision for granting leave with wages for the office bearers of a registered trade union to attend negotiation, conciliation, or court matters, etc.? Please clarify, and I would be thankful if you could provide the necessary details/documents for the HR fraternity.

Regards,
Nataraajhan
Sakthi Management Services

Union Representation and On-Duty Treatment

In case the registered union is the appellant and the management is the respondent, the persons representing the union shall not be entitled to any tour/on-duty treatment. If the management is the appellant and the union representatives are required to give evidence on behalf of management in any case in favor of management, then only such union representatives or workmen shall be treated as on tour/on-duty, and they shall be paid salary/wages as well as TA/DA as per the rules of the company.

Management's Stance on Union Cases

How can one management allow union representative(s) to file a case against management in any court/legal body and ask for favor of treatment as on duty? If this will be accepted, it will be against the interest of the management. Being an HR or finance manager, it is our utmost duty to safeguard the interests of employees as well as the management equally.

Regards,
AK Jain

Paid Special Leave for Court Attendance

Granting paid special leave to attend conciliation and other court cases depends on the leave policy of an establishment. It's customary that if an employee is required to appear as a witness for and on behalf of the establishment, he/she could be granted special casual leave with pay. However, this is not the case when they are opposing the establishment. Sometimes, when the trial takes place in a different location than the duty place, he/she could be paid traveling expenses as well. Otherwise, an establishment cannot defend their cases successfully. In some instances, compensatory duty off is also in vogue instead of granting special leave in these circumstances.

Dear Friends,

First and foremost, no statutory right vests with a trade union to stake a claim for permission for its office-bearers to discharge the activities of the union, whether it is representation before any authority or otherwise during their working hours, nor is any legal obligation cast upon the management to oblige in this regard. The status of either the management or the union in a dispute as plaintiff or respondent, or vice versa, has no relevance in such a situation. However, convention demands the grant of leave of absence at times to office-bearers of a recognized trade union, that too restricted to certain numbers. It is just a concession in the interest of cordial industrial relations to enable the institution of the trade union to discharge its duties effectively in a given conflict situation whose expeditious resolution would benefit both the partners of production. By the phrase 'at times,' what I mean is the hearing of a case before an adjudicatory authority or a negotiation involving the collective interest of all the workmen and the management as parties.

In this connection, the following observation of the Honorable High Court of Madras in Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinate Union v. TNEB [1984(II) LLJ 478 (Mad)] is noteworthy:

"Trade unionism is recognized all over the world, but that does not mean that an office-bearer of the union can claim, as of right, that he can do union work during office hours. When the workmen were given a concession, dictated by the then prevailing circumstances, it should not be considered as an inviolable right."

---

I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the text provided. The paragraphs have been formatted correctly with a single line break between them to improve readability.

Thank you, Mr. Umakanthan, for the correct legal clarification. In fact, it is always better for the management not to give unnecessary and extraordinary benefits to any trade union members under the pretext of having smooth and cordial industrial relations. A true trade union expects and always appreciates a strong and straightforward management.

Regards,
Nataraajhan
Sakthi Management Services

I endorse the views of Mr. Umakanthan, which are well considered. There is no statute conferring such rights, and it is a matter of good convention, custom, and principles of mutual respect for each other's rights that govern industrial relations. These will be the basis for granting such rights and concessions to the union.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
Navi Mumbai

I appreciate Sh Umakanthan for nicely explaining the legal position and citing the judgment in the case of Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinate Union v. TNEB [1984(II) LLJ 478 (Mad)], which suggests that a union cannot claim, as a matter of right, to do union work during office hours at the expense of their regular duties.

Concession for Union Work

I strongly believe that in this specific case, such a concession should not be granted to them as they have not been declared as 'Protected Workmen' under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Instead, they are currently engaged in a legal battle against the company for recognition as "Protected Workmen."

Regards,
BS Kalsi Member since Aug 2011