GIRJASHANKAR KASHIRAM Vs. GUJARAT SPINNING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave against the order of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing the petition of the appellants under Art. 227 of the Constitution raises an important question with regard to the right of a Representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) to appear in proceeding under the Act to the exclusion of an employee desiring a change under s. 42(4) of the Act. The question arises in this way. The Gujarat Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (hereinafter called the old Company) closed its business on May 14, 1953 and sold its assets to the Tarun Commercial Mills Company Limited (hereinafter called the new Company). The old Company had discharged all its workmen when it closed its business which happened before s. 25F relating to retrenchment was introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act, (No. XIV of 1947). The new Company re-started the business after a week and took in its service the workmen of the old Company. It appears that at the time the closure took place a dispute was pending between the old Company and its workmen with respect to bonus. As the closure had taken place while that dispute was pending, the Textile Labour Association (hereinafter called the Association), which is a Representative Union of the textile workers in the city of Ahmedabad, filed an application under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act of 1950 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal where the dispute was pending. In that matter there was a compromise, and though, according to the old Company, there was no available surplus to give bonus, the old Company agreed to pay bonus by way of settlement to the extent of 1/8th of the earnings of the workmen for the year in dispute; and in consideration of this the Association on behalf of all the workmen discharged as a result of closure agreed not to press for any compensation for their discharge and the workmen who accepted the bonus by this agreement gave an undertaking not to claim compensation in any other way in any future proceeding. This happened in March 1955. Thereafter in July 1956, 376 persons who had been in the employ of the old Company and were a minority of its workmen gave notice under s. 42(1) of the Act and claimed compensation for the closure which had taken place in 1953. As no settlement could be arrived at between the parties this was followed by an application under s. 42(4) of the Act before the labour court in October 1956 and these workmen claimed that they should be paid adequate compensation for the closure of the mill in view of their past services. To this application both the old Company and the new Company were made parties. The application was opposed by both the companies on various grounds with which we are however not concerned in the present appeal. In January 1957, the Association made an appearance before the labour court and contended that the application should be dismissed in view of the compromise which had been arrived at before the Labour Appellate Tribunal in 1953. The labour court accepted this contention and dismissed the application.

(2.) Thereupon some of the workmen went in appeal to the industrial court and their contention seems to have been that, though no individual can be permitted to appear in any proceeding where the Representative Union appears as representative of employees, in this case the action of the Association after its appearance in not supporting the case of the workmen before the labour court was mala fide; therefore the Association should not have been allowed to appear on behalf of the employees who had applied to the labour court and they should be permitted to carry on their application. This contention was rejected by the industrial court, which was of opinion that it was not for an industrial court to go into the question of bona fides or mala fides for appearance of a Representative Union and that the law under the Act was clear that where a Representative Union appeared it alone could represent the applicants even in a case under s. 42(4) of the Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Thereupon the employees appear to have filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, which was summarily rejected. The High Court also refused to give leave to appeal. Then there was a petition to this Court for special leave which was granted, and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the appellants before us is that reading the various provisions of the Act, an employee making an application under s. 42(4) of the Act is not debarred from appearing in the labour or industrial court and carrying on with his application even though the Representative Union makes an appearance. It is submitted that if the interpretation pressed on behalf of the respondents were accepted it would amount to tyranny of the Representative Union and this could not be the intention of the legislature in framing the Act. It is also contended that if the interpretation pressed on behalf of the respondents is correct, the provisions in the Act may be liable to be struck down as ultra vires the Constitution.