TRADE UNIONS ACT 1926 1) Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides for the registration of the Trade Unions

with the Registrars of Trade Unions of their territory. 2) Any seven or more members of a trade union by submitting their names to the registrar of trade unions and otherwise complying with the provisions of the Act with respect to registration may apply for the registration of the Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act. 3) The Act gives protection to registered trade unions in certain cases against civil and criminal action.

Four important central organizations of workers in India are 1. The Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). The Congress Party and the top congress leaders formed the INTUC like Nehru and Patel were associated with it. Every union affiliated to INTUC has to submit its dispute to arbitration after exhausting other means of settlement of disputes.

2. The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). This union serves as the labor forum of Communist Party of India at present. It is considered as the second largest union in India. 3. The Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). It was formed in Calcutta by the socialists who neither approved INTUC nor AITUC. The HMS was organized with a view to keeping its members free from any political or other outside interference. 4. The United Trade Union Congress (UTUC). Those persons who were dissident socialist formed it. It functions mainly in Kerala and West Bengal. Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU). The Marxists separated from the AITUC in May 1970 and formed the CITU. In addition to the above, there are four other central trade union organizations. They are: Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) National Labour Organisation (NLO) National Front of Indian Trade Unions (NFITU) Trade Union Congress Committee (RAILWAYS, DOCK UNION DHOBI GHAT, KOLI UNIONS)

Kolkata, Feb 20 (IANS) Accusing the West Bengal government of "maliciously" using Calcutta High Court's name to declare the two-day strike as illegal, trade unions Wednesday said they will seek legal action against it. They also claimed that the nationwide shutdown had a "tremendous impact" in the state. "The high court has merely said that strike cannot be enforced forcibly, but the Banerjee government has been maliciously using its name to say that strike has been rendered illegal," CITU state secretary Shyamal Chakrabarty told reporters here. "The announcement amounts to contempt of court and we will drag to the court those responsible for making this notification as well as police officers responsible for making the announcements," he said. With Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee declaring her government would not allow strikes and shutdowns, police have been making announcements around the state that the "high court has declared the strike as illegal" urging people not to participate. The trade unions also claimed that the first day of the two-day strike was having a "tremendous impact" in the state despite the "coercive methods" used by the government to foil it. "Trinamool Congress supporters with the aid of the administration resorted to violence to deter people from joining the strike but they have failed. Most of the offices, including government ones, transport and educational institutions, remained shut," Ashok Ghosh of UTUC said. The labour bodies also questioned Banerjee's opposition to strike when her own party resorted to frequent shutdowns. "Her party (Trinamool) called 21 shutdowns and strikes between 2007 and 2011, and now after coming to power, she is taking a stand against strikes saying they cause loss to the economy. Does she have the moral right to do so," said Chakrabarty.

The trade unions also rubbished the government's threat to cancel licences of traders and deducting salaries of government employees who joined the strike. "Strike is a democratic right of workers universally recognised and no government has the legal right to cancel trade licenses or deduct salaries. If the government does so, it will have to face legal action. "It is most unfortunate that our chief minister is grossly ignorant about legal rights. She immediately needs to refer to the constitution," Chakrabarty said. The unions claimed that of the 37,000 private buses and around 5,000 mini-buses operating in the state, only a few hundred plied initially and later were withdrawn. Also, only 300 of the 33,000 taxis were on the roads, they said. The Feb 20-21 strike has been called by 11 central trade unions to press for a 10-point charter of demands.

Relief for Hundreds of small shop keepers in Allahabad

This matter, (tittles as Azad Hawkers Street Vendors Union U.P & Others Vs State of U.P & Others) is dealing with the issue of illegal eviction of small shop keepers. The street vendors union along with individual shop keepers challenged the order dated: 19.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in PIL Writ petition No.4003 of 2006, where the Honble High Court passed the sealing and demolition orders against the shops keepers whose shops were allotted to them by the ADA/Municipal Corporation through legal allotment process, and now they are terming them as encroachments.

The above mentioned PIL filed by the Re: Ganga Pollution was filed in view of issues related to pollution in the river Ganga and its clearance, but shockingly the Honble High Court passed an order against the legally possessed shop keepers terming them as encroachers. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in Ganga pollution matter, the office of the Municipal Commissioner of Allahabad on dated 22.01.2013 issued a notification to proceed with the demolition process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Altamish kabir, Justice Anil Dave and Justice Vikramjit Sen ordered to maintain Status Quo with issuing notices against the State of U.P & Others in a matter where Allahabad High Court passed the demolition orders against the hundreds of small shop keepers, whose shops were legally allotted to them by the Municipal Corporation & Allahabad Development Authority terming them as encroachers. The Supreme Court took strict note of this action and asked the state to reply in four weeks.

Oswal Petrochemicals Vs. Union of India and ors. WP (C) 3237 of 2010
This petition was filed by Oswal Petrochemicals in the Delhi High Court against the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated April 13, 2010. The tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for paying a sum of 43,38,921 rupees as provident fund contribution of 43 employees for the period from October, 1999 to January, 2004. The employees had taken a voluntary retirement and had arrived at a settlement and a memorandum of settlement dated September 12, 2003, by which they were entitled to certain benefits. Though, the petitioners had already paid the back wages as per the settlement entered by them but had challenged the claim of the employees for provident fund on the same. The High Court dismissed the appeal relying on the order of Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills and another vs. Union of India and another, (2001) 2 SCC 519 wherein it

is stated that even in a case of lump sum payment of full and final settlement of all the claims, the management is required to contribute to the provident fund.

Try and find out 1) Objectives of trade union act 2) Benefits of trade union act And if possible please summarize the oswal petrochemical case and Allahabad case.