WA/242/2019 of MRF UNITED WORKERS UNION Vs M/S.MRF LIMITED on 28 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) Introduction: M/s MRF Limited is a tyre manufacturing company, having its factory at various locations including Arakkonam, Vellore District, which was established in the year 1972. The Workers were represented by the majority Union. In the year 2001, a wage settlement was arrived at between the Management and the then majority Union M/s MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association.

2. Not satisfied with the functioning of the said Union and alleging that it was controlled by the Management, M/s MRF United Workers Union, was formed on 29.12.2003. Thereafter, seeking recognition, M/s MRF United Workers Union filed W.P.No.17991 of 2008 on the ground that their charter of demands was not considered by the Management and Section 18(1) wage settlement was signed by the representatives of the Management and M/s MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed an interim injunction order in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.17991 of 2008, dated 28.07.2008. The said interim injunction restraining the Management and MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union, was vacated by the Court, vide, order dated 05.05.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009. Also, simultaneously, the said Union raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.14 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, pursuant to the reference made by the Government to adjudicate over 36 issues. While so, on expiry of 18(1) wage settlement, another settlement on 09.05.2009 came into force, which was entered between the Management of MRF Limited and M/s MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union, which was recognised as the majority Union.

3. Challenging the order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.17991 of 2008, dated 05.05.2009, W.A.No.674 of 2009 was filed.

4. Both the main writ petition in W.P.No.17991 of 2008 and W.A.No.674 of 2009 were disposed of on 08.09.2009 by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the relevant portion reads as below:- “37. Having noted this scenario and considering that there is continuous strife in the company, in our view, the Court cannot simply remain a silent spectator. We are aware that the Court has its own limitation while exercising jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ or direction. On analysing the provisions of Article 19 (1) (c), it recognises the right to form association and also the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act that there should be recognised union and when there is an inclination of the State Government to accept a particular procedure, which is otherwise also accepted in different statutes throughout the country, in our view, the correct course will be to give a direction to the Commissioner of Labour to call upon the two unions to submit their membership details as per the Code of Discipline and examine their membership as provided under the Code over a period. In the event, there are any objections, the objections could be verified in the light of clause-7 of the Code of Discipline by personal interrogatories so as to arrive at the correct membership of either of the two trade unions. Alternative to this procedure namely, ballot system, which, although is recommended by the Committee of the ILO, is not accepted in any of the statutes which have been brought to our notice. The recommendations of the Committee can only be respected to this effect that there has to be a collective bargaining agent of the workmen, which is to be a truly and independent representative agent. As far as the methods suggested by the Committee is concerned, it would result into determination on the basis of the facts arrived at a particular point of time, which has not been very much appreciated as a proper method. The method of verification on the other hand will show the following of a particular union over a longer period and would definitely be a better option. The other alternative approach is to say that none of the methods is recognised and therefore the choice of the management will prevail. That certainly cannot be permitted in view of the provisions of the fifth schedule of the Act. The Code of Conduct has a force of acceptance of the organisation of the workers and of the Management and also of the Government, and is being followed in different undertakings. Further, it is also in tune with the provisions of the different statutes in different States.

38. In the circumstances, in our view, the only alternative, as stated above, is to direct the State Government and the Commissioner of Labour to conduct the exercise as per the Code of Discipline, to which the State Government is agreeable. Accordingly, the Petitioner Union may apply to the concerned Labour Commissioner within two weeks from today presenting the claim of its membership figures during the last six months i.e. for the period from 1 march, 2009 to 31 August, 2009. On receipt of such an application, the concerned Labour Commissioner will issue notice to the two unions, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application, calling upon them to submit their membership registers and the necessary supportive documents under the Code of Discipline within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice by them. The notice will call upon them to produce their records as per the Code of Discipline during the period of six months prior to the date of notice. The Labour Commissioner shall thereafter proceed to decide as to which Union is the representative union of the workmen. We cannot permit the Management to say that the Union which shows the larger membership at the end of the exercise will not be recognised by the Management. Recognition is for the purpose of representing the causes of the workmen in various fora including before the Management and various authorities under the Labour Law. It is not a determination available for the sole

satisfaction of the Management. It is a factual determination and the determination leads to a status. The Union which establishes a larger membership at the end of the aforesaid exercise, shall be recognised as the representative union.

39. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid directions. In view of the disposal of the writ petition with the directions specified above, the write appeal stands disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions will stand disposed of. Those workmen who want to avail the benefit of the settlement will be free to accept it, though it will be open to the petitioner union to challenge the legality and validity thereof by taking appropriate steps by raising demand and carrying the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

40. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, though we refrain from awarding any costs. The writ appeal stands disposed of.

5. However, the above common order of the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged by the Management before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C)Nos.27339-27340 of 2009 and there was a stay of the above order, vide order dated 03.11.2009, which was finally disposed of as withdrawn on 02.12.2015.

6. Meanwhile, Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2010 in I.D.No.14 of 2008 was filed by the Management to pass an award in I.D.No.14 of 2008 as per the terms of the settlement (M3) dated 22.12.2004, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the management of MRF Limited and Arakonam and MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees’ Association for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008 and in terms of settlement dated 09.05.2009 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that has been accepted by 1004 workmen, out of 1396 workmen for the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.04.2013. The Industrial Tribunal, after detailed discussion, dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition vide, order dated 30.10.2013.

7. Being aggrieved, the Management namely, MRF Limited, preferred Writ Petition No.34038 of 2013, after withdrawal of the SLP.

8. Challenging the order of the Division Bench passed in W.P.No.17991 of 2008 and W.A.No.674 of 2009, dated 08.09.2009, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai undertook the process of verification of the membership of the Union, under the Code of Discipline, vide proceedings dated 30.03.2016, and concluded that MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union to be the sole representative Union, since it had secured substantive support from 826 employees.

9. The Annexure to the proceedings disclosing membership status indicates as below:- ANNEXURE STATUS OF RECORD VERIFICATION FOR 2009 Sl.No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. Single Membership

2. Dual Membership

3. Triple Membership

4. Multiple Membership

5. Total

6. No.left

Total No. on rolls

STATUS OF RECORD VERIFICATION FOR 2015 Sl.No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. Single Membership

2. Dual Membership

3. Triple Membership

4. Multiple Membership

Total

STATUS OF PERSONAL VERIFICATION HELD ON 16.03.2016 Sl. No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union (INTUC)

2. MRF United Workers Union (ULF)

3. Arakonam MRF Anna Thozhilalar Sangam (ATP)

4. Arakonam MRF Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (LPF)

5. Bharatiya MRF Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)

6. Arakonam MRF Labour Liberation Front (LLF)

7. Total

8. No.of absentees

9. Total No. on rolls

10. The Errata is issued on the same day, which is extracted as below: ANNEXURE STATUS OF RECORD VERIFICATION FOR 2009 Sl.No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. Single Membership

2. Dual Membership

3. Triple Membership

4. Multiple Membership

5. Total

6. No.left

Total No. on rolls

STATUS OF RECORD VERIFICATION FOR 2015 Sl.No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. Single Membership

2. Dual Membership

3. Triple Membership

4. Multiple Membership

Total

STATUS OF PERSONAL VERIFICATION HELD ON 16.03.2016 Sl.No. Membership Status Total Membership

1. MRF Arakonam Workers Welfare Union (INTUC)

2. MRF United Workers Union (ULF)

3. Arakonam MRF Anna Thozhilalar Sangam (ATP)

4. Arakonam MRF Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (LPF)

5. Bharatiya MRF Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)

6. MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association (MCTU)

6. Arakonam MRF Labour Liberation Front (LLF)

7. Total

8. No.of absentees

9. Total No. on rolls

11. The proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, along with the Errata thereto, are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.24228 of 2016 filed by MRF United Workers Union and the Writ Petition No.34038 of 2013 filed by the Management, MRF Limited, challenging the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2010 in I.D.No.14 of 2008. On completion of the process of membership verification, the writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and a common order was passed on 03.04.2018, wherein the writ petition filed by the Management in W.P.No.34038 of 2013 was allowed for the following reasons:-

“ 20. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would show that it has committed and fundamental and basic error in presuming that the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act will have to be entered into between the Union representing the majority workmen. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Management, what is relevant is the acceptance of the majority of the workmen. In the case on hand, the settlement was accepted by 1301 out of 1395 workmen. Not only that, all those who accepted the settlement have received the benefit. We are dealing with a case, in which, the workmen oscillate between one Union and other. The Tribunal did give a factual finding that the workmen did sign Exs.M4, M6 and M24. These letters as notarised are not admittedly settlement entered into under Section 18 (1) of the Act, but mare acknowledgement of it. The Tribunal also gave a finding that the benefits were accepted voluntarily. It is an admitted fact that the workmen received the benefits flowing from the settlements viz., Exs.M3 and M8. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Management, the principle of estoppel would certainly apply.

21. The Tribunal went on to commit further errors in giving a finding that there is no material to hold that the settlement was arrived at in pursuant to the resolution passed by the general body of the 'respondent Union viz. MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association. It is not even pleaded by the petitioner Union. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the petitioner Union that the letters of Acceptance are not true and genuine, which was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a factual finding that the election did take place and thereafter, settlement was signed by the office bearers under Section 2(p) of the Act.dd In any case, none of the workmen has challenged this. This was also for the reason that they were enjoying the benefits of the settlement. Certainly, the Management cannot be asked to prove the factum of convening of the general body followed by elected office bearers signing the settlement. Suffice it is to state vast majority of the workmen accepted the settlement. A perusal of the settlement entered into in the year the settlement entered into in the year 2009 also shows that all the disputes have been settled. It is to be noted that even the Secretary of the respondent Union has stated that 1003 workmen have received the benefits which arose from Ex.M3.

22. Thus, from the above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The only other issue, which can be gone into is as to whether the Settlements are fair. workmen have not only accepted the settlement but received the benefits, this Court is not willing to remit the matter for the aforesaid purpose at this point of time. This is also for the reason that subsequent settlements have come into being including one under Section 12(3) of the Act and under Section 18(1) of the Act. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not taken note of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act. Suffice it is to state that much water has flown under the bridge. Uploading the order of the Tribunal or remanding for fresh consideration would certainly affect the industrial peace and harmony over an issue, which has been settled. Furthermore, both the sides argued the application on merit before the Tribunal. On a perusal of the settlements, it is very clear that they have taken into consideration of several factors including the revision of wages, dearness allowance, increment attendance allowance, house rent allowance, washing allowance, bonus, accident policy, annual gift, transport, national and festival holidays among other things. Thus, apart from the above, this Court is of the view that there is a reasonable increase given by the Management on different heads. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and consequently, the application filed in M.A.No.29 of 2010 in I.D.No.14 of 2008 stands allowed as prayed for. As a result, writ petition filed in W.P.No.34038 of 2013 is allowed.

12. The writ petition in W.P.No.24228 of 2016 filed by MRF United Workers Union, was dismissed with the following observations: “23. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour would show that the exhaustive procedure was followed in determining the status through verification. All the records were perused, membership register analysis and dual members were taken note of. Having found the dual membership as of 2009 personal interrogation was also made on the Code of Discipline. The verification process was informed to the revenue officials headed by the District Collector, apart from the help of the Police Department. The meeting prior to the verification was attended by all the Unions and by its representatives. The only request made by the petitioner was to conduct the process in a neutral place. Thereafter, a long deliberation took place, upon which, it was agreed to conduct a personal verification within the factory premises. The Standard Operating Procedure was also explained to all the representatives of the respective Unions, followed by

service of the copies.

24. Every workmen was interrogated by a team of two officers. A huge force of police was also deployed. The conduct of the verification process was done to the satisfaction of the unions. The personal hearing was conducted in the presence of the Commissioner of Labour. A factual finding has been recorded that the workman had clearly indicated their preference for one Union only. Accordingly, the respondent Union obtained the support from 826 employees.

25. Thus, this Court does not find any violation of the Code Discipline. The petitioner Union did express its satisfaction. There was no objection at any point of time. The contention that the membership status of one Union has been included in the respondent Union being a mere allegation cannot be countenanced. The petitioner Union is also not entitled in law to have a copy of the list containing the status of an employee qua the other Unions. The procedure for secret ballot was not found favour by the Division Bench. It was also not contemplated in the Code of Discipline. To be noted, we are concerned with the status qua the Union through the verification process. After all, this Court is exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus not expected to go into the minute factual details. The procedural violation, if any, cannot help the petitioner Union, who did accept to the process indicated. After all, we are concerned with the substantive compliance.

26. This Court does not find any bias involved in the verification process. The authority under whose leadership the process was completed was the Commissioner of Labour. Merely because one of the Officers did work as an Apprentice for some time with the Management, no motive can be attributed. The petitioner Union did not raise it at the relevant point of time. The officer was discharging her official duty. A plea of likelihood of bias has to be raised and proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is no benefit that can be attributed to the officer. It is also to be seen that personal interrogation was done by a team of two officers. Hence, the contention of bias cannot be sustained.

27. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also would submit that the concept of collective bargaining has been given a go by. Therefore, this aspect will have to be looked into in dealing with both the cases. Though there is no difficulty in appreciating that there should be an element of collective bargaining, this Court has only to see if is done contrary to it. When once it is held on facts that the settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Act was arrived at by the majority of the workmen then the concept of collective bargaining has tobe held in its favour. The fact that most of them wanted to wriggle out of it subsequently after enjoying the fruits cannot be a ground to hold against the concept of collective bargaining. In the same way, this Court does not find the concept of collective bargaining being affected. The reliance made by the learned Senior Counsel on the happenings prior to the settlements would not help the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.No.24228 of 2016 stands dismissed.”

13. Being aggrieved by the reasonings and the observations made in the above common order dated 03.04.2018, MRF United Workers Union have preferred W.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2019, which is taken up for consideration in this order.

14. Pending these two writ appeals, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai had carried out the process of membership verification and passed proceedings on 01.11.2018 in compliance with the direction of this Court as found in paragraph No.28.

15. For easy reference, the direction of this Court dated 03.04.2018 in W.P.Nos.24228 of 2016 and 34038 of 2013, as found in paragraph No.28 of the common order, is extracted as below:- “28. One more issue has to be considered. This is with respect to the ensuing election to be held. As recorded above, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Union was willing to give up most of the contentions raised. There was some objection on the fresh verification process and on the process tobe adopted, especially, the secret ballot. However, one thing is clear, which is the expiry of the term, which gives the status of representative Union to the respondent. Considering the long and chequered history involving prolonged battles and with the fond hope of putting an end, this Court is of the view that appropriate direction will have to be given to the Commissioner of Labour viz., the first respondent to undertake the similar exercises done earlier by following standard operating procedure as per the Code of Discipline and after conducting a meeting with all the Unions. Appendix-III(6) and (7) are also to be followed among other things. The verification process will have to be completed with the identification of the respective Union within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Though an objection was raised by the respondent Union in this regard, the same stands rejected as even on the earlier occasion, the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to supra has directed the Commissioner of Labour to undertake the aforesaid exercise on a writ petition filed by the present petitioner Union. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

16. The proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour dated 01.11.2018 is the subject matter of the W.P.No.8856 of 2019. The same is taken up together along with the Writ Appeal Nos. 242 and 243 of 2019 for consideration in this common order, since the appellants and the petitioner in the respective case is MRF United Workers Union and the Management is the common respondent. Hence, pursuant to the administrative order passed by the Acting Chief Justice on 26.09.2019, all the three cases are tagged together to be heard by this Bench.

17. We heard Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for MRF United Workers Union and Mr.Sanjay Mohan representing the Management of MRF Limited and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union.

18. The contesting parties have submitted statements of facts with relevant dates and events. We have gone through the oral submissions besides the written statements submitted.

19. The proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated 01.11.2018 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.8856 of 2019 is the latest in point of time, which has capsulated the litigation history in a nutshell and also set out how the verification process took place pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.24228 of 2016. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour dated 01.11.2018 are reproduced hereunder:-

20. The prime contention of the MRF United Workers Union, as spoken through the learned Senior Counsel, is that, the Management has been consistently following unfair labour practices. The alleged settlement with the Union controlled by the Management is invalid. The voice of the majority has been stifled by punitive action. The verification process conducted by the Commissioner of Labour was not in consonance with the Code of Discipline. No secret ballot was conducted and no opportunity was given to inspect the membership of the Union. It is further contended that, in the secret ballot conducted, pursuant to the Union of India direction, to follow the International Labour Organisation Committee recommendation and term of representative, MRF United Workers Union controlled by the Management secured only 43 votes, out of 1003 votes and lost the election. However, another puppet Union was created by the Management and subsequent settlement was entered with the puppet Union. Insofar as the verification process conducted by the Commissioner of Labour is concerned, the appellant alleges that the officer who conducted the verification was one time an employee of MRF Limited.

21. The Management as well as MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union, in counter to the above allegation, has filed their written statement, wherein, it has been specifically stated that W.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2019 have lost its significance and relevance whatsoever in view of the letter of acceptance by the individual workman and on the receipt of the monetary benefits and other benefits accrued through the settlement. Insofar as the verification of the membership is concerned, the respondents claim that it has been done transparently in the presence of the Union representative. Conducting secret ballot at a neutral place would have defeated the purpose, since the personal verification at the work spot is more appropriate to avoid manipulation and rigging. The Commissioner of Labour has properly conducted the verification and his report is self-explanatory. It is also placed on record that the appellant-Union, namely, MRF United Workers Union, which was formed a few months prior to the expiry of the settlement entered in the year 2001, never had the support of a substantial majority of the workers.

22. According to the respondents, in the year 2004, when settlement (Ex.M3) was entered into, 1,060 workers out of 1,140 workers submitted their letters of acceptance; in the year 2009, when the settlement was entered into between the Management on one part and MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare on the another part, 1,264 workers, out of 1,396 workers, submitted their letters of acceptance and received benefits provided under the settlement marked as Ex.M8. In the year 2013, the settlement dated 03.07.2013 was entered into between the Management and MRF Arakkonam Workers

Welfare Union and Anna Tholilalar Sangam under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.04.2017; the settlement dated 03.06.2017 entered between the Management and MRF Arakkkonam Workers Welfare Union for the period from 01.05.2017 to 30.04.2021; the settlement dated 30.06.2021 entered between the Management and MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union for a period of from 01.05.2021 to 30.04.2025; and the settlement dated 15.09.2025 entered between the Management and MRF Arakkonam Workers Welfare Union for the period from 01.05.2025 to 30.04.2029. Apart from the settlement, to show that the majority of the workers were given letters of acceptance and received the benefits, there cannot be any challenge to the valid settlement, which binds on all the workmen. The writ appeals and writ petition by MRF United Workers Union filed on frivolous grounds to disturb the industrial harmony, has to be curbed by dismissing the same with costs.

23. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the records.

24. The writ appeals, challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge, are filed primarily on the ground that the unfair labour practice adopted by the Management has not been properly appreciated and the finding of the Tribunal was reversed, ignoring the letters of acceptance given by 1000 workmen and the acceptance of monetary benefit was without prejudice to their right to challenge the settlement, a right, which was explicitly protected by the order of the High Court, while disposing the earlier round of writ petitions.

25. There is no two views about the said protection. No doubt, the Court has given protection and liberty to the workmen to challenge the earlier settlements entered in the year 2004 and 2009, which are the subject matter of the present litigations in W.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2019. However, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-Union never had the majority support of the workmen. Having realised this, the verification process itself challenged by the Union on the ground of bias and manipulation. The order of the Commissioner of Labour passed on 01.11.2018 which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, speaks how the verification was conducted in the presence of the Union members and what opportunity was given to them to establish the membership. With dual membership and without taking contribution to the respective Union, the appellant claims majority support. However, a thorough verification of the membership has proved, otherwise. We also find no violation of the Code of Discipline while conducting the verification process. Conducting secret ballot at the place other than the work place would have given opportunity for impersonation, booth capturing and manipulation. The Commissioner of Labour, being the responsible officer, has conducted verification for two days, at the works place to eliminate impersonation and booth capturing by violence. The appellant finds fault with the said process for no valid reason, except aggrieved, after found that the Union does not muster the support of majority of the workers. We hold that the allegations against the officer, who has conducted the membership verification, are without any basis. It is to be recorded that with the all-around improvement in the industrial relationship climate, the Union militancy and the threat of violence or work stoppage are things of the past. Under the garb of collective bargaining, a few disgruntled elements cannot create a situation, which would bring industrial disharmony.

26. It is appropriate to quote Karnal Leather Karamchari Sabghathan v. Liberty Footwear Co. reported in [1990 Lab IC 301 (SC)], in which the Hon’ble Justice Jagannatha Shetty said, “collective bargaining is a technique by which disputes as to conditions of employment are resolved amicably, by agreement, rather than by coercion. The dispute is settled peacefully and voluntarily, although reluctantly, between labour and management”.

27. The case in hand, the process of collective bargaining between the Management and the majority of the workmen satisfactorily concluded that it is well proved and established by the conduct and prevalence of the industrial peace by and large till date. The collective bargaining involving the majority of the workers is well established through the documents and by the proven conduct of the workforce as well as the Management. While so, there need not be any interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition, assigning reasons at length, as stated above.

28. We, on re-appreciation of the material, totally concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge both in respect of the reasoning for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant-union herein and allowing the writ petition filed by the Management.

29. Insofar as W.P.No.8856 of 2019, the challenge to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, dated 01.11.2018 is concerned, we wish to record that recognition of the negotiating Union or negotiating council as codified in the Industrial Relation Code, 2020 and the same will come into the full effect, after Rules are notified. Till then the Court has to ensure, whether the verification has been done in a transparent manner, without any apparent error. The proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, which are impugned in the writ petition in W.P.No.8856 of 2019 speaks for themselves. In the given scenario, there cannot be a better way of verifying the membership than the manner in which the Commissioner has done. In this case, if the petitioner-Union has not been able to muster the majority, it has to gain the confidence of the majority of the workmen to claim the right to negotiate. It cannot adopt an arm- twisting method questioning each and every action, which are all not to its advantage.

30. In the present case, we also find that, in respect of the reference raised by the petitioner as early as the end of 2004, those issues have been considered during the settlement talks held by the Union, which has very minimal support inside and outside, wants to keep the litigation pending with the sole intention of causing industrial disharmony. The Court cannot be privy to such an oblique intention. The Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions are not worthy of any consideration.

31. Hence, these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition are dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) (E.MANOHARAN,J.) 28.09.2026 ari Index:yes Neutral citation:yes/no

To

1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner Of Labour,DMS Compound, Chennai-6.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai-6.

4. The Managing Director, MRF Limited, No.114, Greams Road, Chennai-6.

5. Tmt.S.Kalaivani, Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS, Compound, Chennai-600 006.

6. The Secretary, Union Of India Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

7. The Secretary, Arakkonam MRF Workers Welfare Union (Reg.No.1268/VLR) No.4, Shastri Nagar, Ichiputhur, Arakkonam-631 003.

8. The Secretary, Arakkonam MRF Anna Thozhilalarkalsangam, (Reg.1485/VLR) Arakkonam-Tiruttani Road, Devaraj Nagar, Thangaipllur Village and Post, Arakkonam Taluk-631 003, Vellore District.

9. The General Manager, MRF Limited, Rep.by its General Manager, Ichiputhur Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District-631 003.

10. The President,MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employees Association, Reg.210/NAT, MRF Nagar, Ichiputhur Village and Post, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District.

11. The President, Arakkonam MRF Tholilalar Munnetra Sangam (Affiliated to LPF), No.94, Ettukuppusamy Street, Sturtpet, Arakkonam-631 001, Vellore District.

12. The President, Bharathiya MRF Mazdoor Sangam (Affiliated to Vellore District Bharathiya PoduThohilalargalSangam),

No.61, Anna Street, Gandhi Nagar, Jothi Nagar Post, Arakkonam 631 001, Vellore District.

13. The President, Arakkonam MRF Labour Liberation Front, (Affiliated to LLF), No.6, AnnaiSathya Nagar, Pattabiram, Chennai-600 009.

14. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Labour and Employment , Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

15. The President, Arakonam MRF Workers Welfare Union (Reg.No.1268 /VLR), No.4, Shastri Nagar, Ichiputhur, Arakonam 631 003.

16. The Genreal Manager, Management MRF Limited, Ichiputhur, Arakonam Taluk,Vellore District 631 003.

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND E.MANOHARAN,J. ari delivery Common Judgment made in W.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2019 and W.P.No.8856 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.9412 and 9415 of 2019 28.09.2026