Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. (SIEPL) on Tuesday (October 22, 2024) said it had suffered a loss of around $100 million from the recent 38-day long strike by a section of its employees, who wanted their trade union — Samsung India Thozhilalar Sangam, affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) — to be registered.
Appearing before Justice R.N. Manjula, who was seized of a writ petition filed by P. Ellan, general secretary of the new trade union; senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, representing SIEPL, contended that trade unions could not be allowed to use the word ‘Samsung’ in their names since their activities would affect the company’s reputation.
On the other hand, advocate N.G.R. Prasad, representing the writ petitioner, argued that it was not a trademark dispute for the company to raise objection over the use of its name by a trade union. “We are not rivals in their business. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 does not prohibit the use of a company’s name,” he said.
Mr. Prasad also told the court that Samsung was a South Korea-based multinational manufacturing conglomerate and that even at its headquarters, trade unions had been using the word ‘Samsung’ in their names. He said the present writ petition was only between the trade union and the Registrar of Trade Unions.
Taking strong exception to the impleading petition filed by SIEPL, he said the company was not a necessary party to the writ petition. He urged the court to take up the main writ petition and issue a direction to the Registrar to register the petitioner’s trade union if it complied with all the statutory requirements.
However, Mr. Rajagopalan insisted that SIEPL must necessarily be impleaded as a respondent to the writ petition and permitted to file a detailed counter affidavit explaining as to why trade unions could not use the word ‘Samsung’ in their names.
He said CITU was associated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Therefore, by getting affiliated to CITU, a political colour had been given to the new trade union, which sought registration, he said. “We are an international company. We don’t want any political interference in the running of our factory in Sriperumbudur,” the senior counsel added.
When the judge wanted to know whether the political affiliation was the only reason why SIEPL was objecting to the use of the word ‘Samsung’ in the trade union’s name, the counsel said: “Not only that. It is my company’s name that I do not want them to use. Let them have any other name.”
He went on to state that a trade union could have a right to get registered, but it could not claim a right to use the company’s name. He urged the court to also look at the conduct of the new trade union, which had gone on a strike recently thereby causing a loss of $100 million to the company.
“I do not want to argue more on that because they have now returned to work. I also want to deal with this issue very carefully and therefore, Your Lordship may grant me time to file a detailed counter affidavit,” Mr. Rajagopalan urged the court.
After hearing both sides, the judge allowed the impleading application filed by SIEPL and granted it time till November 11 to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition. She observed that the company should be given an opportunity to make its submissions on the plea for registering the trade union.
On his part, Special Government Pleader A. Selvendran told the court that the Registrar of Trade Unions also required some more time to take a decision on the registration application filed by the writ petitioner since SIEPL had raised objection to the use of the word ‘Samsung’ in the name of the trade union.
Published - October 22, 2024 04:51 pm IST