Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
This brings us again to the question of " recognition " of trade unions by employers. This has become the acid test, and controversy over this question is fairly general. The expression owes its origin, so far as India is concerned, to the relations of Government with its servants. Until comparatively recent times, Government servants were prohibited from submitting collective memorials and petitions. When conceded, this right was granted only to combinations which conformed with certain rules. These are known as the Recognition Rules, and unions which accept them are then ordinarily granted formal " recognition " and are able to conduct negotiations with Government on behalf of their members. Private employers have tended to adopt similar methods, but there appears to be some confusion, both among them and among some heads of Government departments, as to the meaning and implications of the term. Some seem to think that " recognition " means that the employer recognises the right of the union to speak on behalf of all his workmen, or at any rate all the class for which the union caters. Influenced in some cases by this misconception and in others, we fear, by a desire to prevent the union from gaining in strength, recognition has frequently been withheld on the ground that the union embraces only a minority of the class concerned. Other reasons given for refusing recognition are the prior existence of another union, the refusal of the union to dispense with the services of a particular official, the inclusion of outsiders in the executive, and the failure of the union to register under the Trade Unions Act.