New Delhi, Dec 4: In a major ruling favouring trade unions, the Supreme Court has held that a person, who has applied to become a member of a union, cannot raise a dispute against it before the Registrar of Trade Unions prior to a decision on his application.@body:The ruling came in a judgement delivered by a division bench of Justice S Rajendra Babu and Justice S N Variava which recently said that a dispute relating to a union can only be raised before the Registrar of Trade Unions by a person who has been a member of that union for at least six months.This judgement sets aside a Mumbai High Court judgement which had held that even a person, who has applied for becoming a member, can raise a dispute under Section 28 (1A) of the Trade Unions Act before the Registrar.The High Court decision was challenged in the apex court by Borosil Glass Works Ltd Employees Union, which had asked some employees to apply individually by filling up prescribed form and make payment of requisite fee and membership subscription while rejecting their joint application for membership.Against the union decision, the employees had raised the issue before the Mumbai High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar of the Trade Unions to issue a consent certificate.The apex court said "the section specifically provides that it can only be evoked by a person who has been a member of such registered trade union for a period of not less than six months".Classification of medicines staysIn a ruling affecting the Ayurveda, Homoeopathic and Unani systems of medicine, the apex court has upheld the validity of classification of medicinal preparations based on the strength of their alcohol content.Setting aside a Guwahati High Court order, a division bench comprising Justice V N Khare and Justice N Santosh Hegde said such classification for the purpose of levying sales tax could not be held to be violative of right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution."We are of the considered view that the classification founded in the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, in regard to the medicinal preparations based on the strength of alcohol contents in the same, cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as held by the High Court," Justice Hegde, writing the judgement for the bench, said.The authorities assessed for sales tax for `Mritasanjivani' manufactured by a company under Item No. 67 of the Act which provided for a tax of 20 per cent for the "spirituous medical preparation under any pharmacopoeia containing more than 12 per cent by volume of alcohol".This decision was challenged in the High Court which declared the Item No. 67 of the Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and directed the assessing authorities to reassess turnover of the company by treating `Mritasanjivani' as all other Ayurvedic medicines which were exempt from sales tax under the Act.Undertrial awarded compensationTaking serious note of the way Ajay Ghosh, a lunatic undertrial, was made to languish in jail for last 38 years by callous authorities, the Supreme Court has directed the West Bengal Government to pay Rs two lakh as interim compensation to Missionaries of Charity, where he was moved this year on the directions of the apex court."There has been a complete violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Prisons Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Lunacy Act in dealing with the case of Ajoy Ghosh," a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice A S Anand said adding "we are anguished".The Bench comprising Justice Anand, Justice M Jagannadha Rao and Justice V N Khare said "The authorities are required to act according to law but the law has been unfortunately respected in its breach."There has been no fixing of accountability even after this court pointed out existence of the sad state of affairs concerning Ajoy Ghosh," the Bench said.
