Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the purchase of shares by office-bearers from union funds was authorised by the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the union constitution, and whether rejection of interim relief by the Industrial Court was sustainable.
Analysis: Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 permits expenditure of general funds only for the objects specified in the Act, and Section 16 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 separately deals with political funds. A purchase of shares in the open market was held to be a speculative activity and not an authorised expenditure or investment under the Act. Clause 14 of the union constitution required union monies to be deposited in a scheduled bank and operated in the prescribed manner, which was inconsistent with utilising a substantial amount for share purchase in the individual names of office-bearers. Approval by the general body could not legalise a transaction that was otherwise outside the statutory and constitutional limits.
Conclusion: The share purchase was unauthorised and illegal, and the Industrial Court erred in refusing interim relief.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned interim order was set aside, and the Industrial Court was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the Court's observations.
Ratio Decidendi: Union funds can be applied only within the objects permitted by the Trade Unions Act and the union constitution, and speculative use of such funds lies outside those powers.