Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6


Recognition as such is different from registration .There is so central on

granting recognition to trade unions. It implies that there are a few state laws
which confer as a grant recognition to trade unions(Gujrat, Maharastra
,Rajasthan,M.P).For the word recognition was not provided in the T.U
Act(1926),the management found a plea in not granting recognition to the
trade unions.
Recognition is of two types
(a) Defacto
(b) De Jure

(1) DEFACTO -: Those trade unions who do not bother about

recognition and commands attendance and knows that whether the
employer recognize or not it can dictate terms are known as defacto

(2) DE JURE -: A trade union is said to be dejure when it is duly and

officially recognized by the management. As employer may on his on
volition grant recognition or he may act with the unions as if it is

Royal commission of labour (1929) observed that the recognition

may mean much but it may mean nothing. No laws can serve that
genuine and full recognition which are desired to see. This statement in
fact speaks the whole truth about recognition. It is not a question of law
but attitude and right earnest on part of management .Thus recognition
means the management must deal with the union with right earnest i.e.,
earnest must cover within. Any forcible recognition by law may not hold
good in the long term. Because recognition involve human attitude
orientation, which can not always be dealt with legally. Such recognition
must be voluntary spontaneous must come vas a result of managements
understanding of trade unions , the law can only act as a catalyst in has
tanning the process of recognition. Recognition is in to maintain as
healthy industrial relation ever on healthy relation situation developed
only when production is carried on the line of cooperative endorsement
on the part of labour and management. There any legal dictations may
result in conflicting situation may result in conflicting situation which is
not conducive for industrial peace. However when such recognition is
accorded voluntarily to a trade union by management, it proves good for
the health of industry and industrial relation. Therefore for the proper and
healthy growth of IR, recognition to trade unions should come
voluntarily and must result from genuine understanding of labour
problems on the part management.


1st attempt -: in the year of 1947, an amendment was brought in the T.U
act of 1926.
In the year 1950, IR bill was introduced where in it was envisaged to
grant recognition to trade unions, however that bill collapsed.
During the second five year plan in 1957 code of discipline was
Indian labour conference was suggested a criteria for recognition for
trade unions, and it was not a law.



1. The unions should have at least one year standing.

2. They should have at least 15% of the membership of the
establishment to claim recognition and 25% of the work force to
claim recognition on industrial basis.
3. When there is more than one union the union with largest membership
will be given recognition.
4. The recognition will be valid for 2years.
5. The unions which do not follow code of discipline will not be grated
6. The local unions if they have more than 50%of the membership can be
given recognition to represent their grievances.
8. On the case of trade unions federation which are not affiliated to any
of four central organization of labour or the questions of
recognition would have to be dealt


Most of the trade unions in India are not financially viable. Under the
trade union act the fraud is collected through
1. Worker member contribute a minimum of 0.25p per month.
(contribution from members).
2. Donations
3. Safe proceeds of periodicals and special collections.
4. Interest on investment.
5. Miscellaneous

The primary source of income of Indian trade unions is the membership

fee which is best natural contribution from the members and donations
account for nearly 90%of the total income of the trade unions in India.
Income derived from other source i.e. sale of periodicals special
collection and interest on investment etc is more or less negligible.


Analyzing the structure of trade unions movement is a very complicated

process. However, we may say that at the base there are primary unions
and at the apex, the central federation which are also called the national
centre. In between fall the recognition and the industrial federation as
well as well as the state branches of the central federation.
(A).PRIMARY UNIONS AT THE BASE: - The primary unions are the
basic units of the structure of the Indian trade unions. They are nearest to
the work place and worker place and workers. They recruit their
members run the local offices and conduct industrial disputes. They are
in closest touch with union members. The primary union in India fall
under three categories i.e.
i) Industrial Unions
ii) General Unions
iii) Craft Unions

Industrial unions- Plant level& region-cum-industry level.

The next higher unit the structure of the Indian trade union is the
industrial federation(Federation at two levels national & regional).
At the top of the Indian trade union structure in national centre. The
primary union’s industrial and regional federation is affiliated to this
national centre according to their convenience and political inclinations.
These national centres are intended primarily to coordinate guide and lay
down the broad policies for the activities of their affiliates.
The NCS have their state branches consisting the affiliated unions
functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the state concerned.


The most pressing problem facing the trade union movement in India
since its inception is that of outside leadership. This is because in earlier
times the workers were reluctant to take up the leadership of trade unions
because they feared nictinusatious or the plan of the management. The trade
unions were readily getting leaders from the society and the leadership were
borrowed from the National Movement.
The present situation has not still undergone a complete
metamorphosis, of course some progress has been made in resorting the
multifarious problems of leadership are trade unions in India. By and large,
leadership does not still come from rank and file, the outsiders bring vested
interest along with them or they usually takeover the reigns of leadership.
Trade union act(1926) has not hastened the process of resolving this problem
rather it has provided for a maximum of 50% of the office bearers or
members of executive body of trade unions may be taken from outside.
Moreover, the employer’s in India still suffers from the concept of status
crisis and feels reserved to talk to the worker-leader across the table.
In view of the above problems in the leadership issue National
Commission on Labour has suggested the following measures to take care of
such problems.
• The workers who have been working in the organizations earlier and
now been victimized, dismissed should not be treated as outsiders.
• NCL has categorically said that there should be no bar as non-
employees holding positions in the executive of the union.
• Steps should be taken to internal leadership through worker’s
• The Trade Unions should intensify their efforts to train workers in
organizational matters.
• Established a convention that no union officer bearer with hold
concurrently any office in a political party.
• They had suggested that trade union executive to 10% when the
membership is below 1000, 20% when the membership is between
1000 to 10,000, 30% when membership is above 10,000. The
permission limit for industry wise union should be 30%
However the view varies from person to person and
whether outside leader is better or that of inside leadership is still a
debatable point.

Argument given in favour of outside-leadership:

- He has a better ability and specialization compared to inside leaders.
- Normally, he is competent in legal matters also.
- He enjoys a social status.
- He has a great ability to raising funds
- He is above professional revelry and jealously.

Argument against outside leadership

- He just not has time to spare to trade union activities.
- He has his own vested interest.
- Possibility of bargaining at the cost of the worker’s interests.
- He is not thoroughly acquainted with the problem of the industry.
- He is not concerned with the industry’s progress and future.

NCL further recommended some measure to encourage and

develop internal leadership.
(1) The employers should demonstratively indicate change in
(2) Recognition of union as a bargaining agent would also help in
bringing about internal leadership.
The political parties are influencing the traditional
in India however the need that trade union should influence political parties.
The Industrial Relations bell 1988 attempts to check the incidence of out-
leadership is trade unions. It envisages that only two outsiders should be is
the executive body of a trade union. No person can be either in the executive
or office bearer is more than 7 unions. No union or state minister can be
office bearer or executive member of trade unions.
It is infact true that outside union leadership can not be done away with ,so
long as democratic pluralism countries India has adopted a democratic form
of government,
Where the government is run by public wish not by the whines of the elite
holding the reigns of the government .The government can not totally
prohibit the recruitment of outside leadership by any legal act, as it will
tantamount to violation of peoples fundamental right of association. NCL
had also felt in same lines when it recommended that there should be so
legal bar on non-employees holding positions in the executive body of the
unions as that would be a very drastic step contravenes the freedom of
association and protection of the right to organize, which, among other
things provides that workers and employees organizations shall have the
right to elect their representatives in full freedom.

Again as India has adopted a federal form of government where by, the
states have been gainer separate, organizational power and a jurisdiction, the
lows and ideas promoted by them and the centre may and ever do vary to a
considerable extent .Different states may go for outside leadership while the
centre goes against it or otherwise .Then the multiplicity of party system
also play place a vital role is sustaining such leadership in the cost of inside
leadership. As the labour force in India constitutes are of the largest vote
banks almost all the political parties fervently try to control the unions
controlling such labourforce.And they try to control those unions by putting
their party man in the leadership of the trade unions. Thus basically it is lack
of political will on the part of political parties and leaders which has been
responsible for imposition of outside leadership in trade unions.

In a democracy there is no place for compension. As most of the labour

force in India are literate they do not simply understand the internecine of
trade union and what it takes to make as insider as the leader. On the other
hand because of their ignorance they are easily swayed by educated
,exploitive outsider and one can not help it as a democracy prohibits
compulsion .Again no law can be successful unless it is seen as a legitimate
on the eyes of general public as in a democracy authority with out legitimacy
has no meaning.

Thus we may conclude that outside leadership is trade unions in India cannot
be put to as end as long as the principles of democratic pluralism exists and
reigns in India.