MAHARASHTRA GIRNI KAMGAR UNION Vs. S BHATTACHARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on certificate of fitness granted by the High court of Bombay, brings in challenge the decision rendered by the division bench of the High court in Appeal no. 685 of 1984 decided on 1 8/07/1986. It raises the question of correct interpretation of Section 3 (25 of the bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'bir Act'). The said provision defines the term 'member' of a trade union which is registered under the BIR Act. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy centering round the aforesaid question, a few introductoryfacts deserve to be noted at the outset.

(2.) The appellant is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is functioning at Greater Bombay and seeks to cater to the problems of its members who are workmen engaged in cotton textile industry situated therein. Respondent no. 4 is duly registered as a representative union in the cotton textile industry for the local area of Bombay under the provisions of Section 13 of the bir Act. It is registered as a representative union on the basis that it enjoyed for the whole period of three calendar months at the relevant time the requisite 25% and more membership of workmen engaged in various cotton textile mills in the city.

(3.) The appellant union on 24/03/1982 moved an application before the registrar functioning under the BIR Act for cancellation of the registration of respondent no. 4 union as a representative union of workmen in the textile industry for the local area of Bombay as per the provisions of Section 15 (b) (ii) of the BIR act. It was contended that for the relevant period of continuous three calendar months the membership of the respondent no. 4 union had fallen below the requisite 25% of the workmen in the textile industry in Bombay and hence its registration was required to be cancelled, intially, the said application was summarily rejected by the Additional Registrar by holding that the membership of respondent no. 4 for the period of continuous three calendar months had not fallen below the minimum. The appellant challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition no. 856 of 1982 in the Bombay High court. The additional Registrar thereupon withdrew his order rejecting the application of the appellant as the High court had directed appropriate inquiry to be made in this connection. Thereafter the Additional Registrar of Unions functioning under the BIR act by his Order dated 4/11/1982 after issuing appropriate show cause notice to respondent no. 4, though having held that the membership of respondent no. 4 had fallen below the minimum required for registration i. e. 25% for the concerned months, declined to cancel the said registration on the ground that during the relevant three months there was a strike in the textile industry in Bombay and, therefore, the workers could not pay up their subscription. The said Order of the Additional Registrar of Unions resulted in two cross appeals before the industrial court, Maharashtra at Bombay. The Industrial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion on an interpretation of Section 3 (25 of the BIR Ad read with Section 15 thereof that the membership of respondent no. 4 union had no' fallen below the minimum required for continuance of its registration as a representative union. Resultantly, the appellant's application under Section 15 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said decision of respondent no. 2 herein i. e. the industrial court, the appellant once more approached the High court in Writ Petition no. 805 of 1983. Learned single Judge of the High court dismissed the writpetition and confirmed the order dated 23rd/ 24/04/1983 of respondent no. 2. The appellant carried a further appeal before the division bench of the High court being OOCJ Appeal no. 685 of 1984. The division bench of the High court by the impugned judgment dated 18/07/1986 dismissed the said appeal agreeing with the interpretation put up on Section 3 (25 of the Act by the Industrial court as well as by the learned single Judge. As noted earlier, on a certificate of fitness granted by the division bench of the High court this appeal has reached this court.