The crux of the problem in labour relations is the multiplicity of trade unions. Under the existing law, as few as seven employees can form a trade union and get it registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. This has led to a proliferation of frivolous unions in the workers' democracy. The problem is that with so many unions to deal with, it is difficult for an employer to decide with which union to negotiate. This is a critical issue, because under the Industrial Disputes Act, collective bargaining settlements are only binding on parties to the agreement, and not on a union that is not a party to it. This causes problems between unions which end up fighting, and between unions and managements, which use each other to sabotage settlements. West Bengal's action of cancelling the registration of around 7,000 unions in 1995 has to be seen in this context as it was partially a reaction to the problem of multiplicity. The Left Front government wanted to make it easier to have binding agreements.
Once the principle is accepted that only recognised trade unions can be granted industrial relations rights, the issue becomes one of establishing criteria for recognition. In states like Maharashtra and Gujarat, there is a law requiring recognition of trade unions by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. But the legislation is vague. For example, in Maharashtra the labour courts are empowered to recognise trade unions. The question of how this is to be done by the courts, however, is left unanswered. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have also followed Maharashtra and Gujarat in introducing legislation in this regard. But matters are no clearer there. Such laws do not exist in other states, nor is there any central legislation on the subject. As has now become evident, this is a highly unsatisfactory way of doing things, and underlines that change is imperative. The pressure for such change must come from labour as well. Only then will the government act expeditiously.