TEXTILES LABOUR ASSOCIATION Vs. PADMABEN MANILAL PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner " Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent " workman.

(2.) The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There is no affidavit"in reply filed by the respondent workman. Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the last drawn wages has been paid to respondent " workman by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada challenging the award in question raising certain contentions before this Court. He submitted that Textiles Labour Association was established in the year 1917. The Textiles Labour Association is a registered trade union in the year 1936 under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner " union is a representative union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946. According to him, petitioner union having his own constitution and according to the constitution, all the activities are based on such constitution of the Union. The respondent was appointed as a trainee in the month of January 1981. Initially, work was assigned for posting of entry in respect to subscription of members received by petitioner union, then she was given a work of Telephone Operator and ultimately, by notice dated 24th September 1984, her service was terminated with effect from 31st December 1984. The respondent had filed petition before this Court challenging the termination which was withdrawn and then dispute was raised which referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court is published on 10th December 1996, then learned advocate Mr. Vasavada submitted that the crucial question is that whether petitioner being a trade union is an 'industry' or not" He read before this Court Page 19, 20 and other relevant pages of the award passed by the Labour Court. He also emphasis the constitution of the Union and pointed out that Union is not having any activities beyond the constitution. He submitted that because of the large membership handling by elected body, some short of organization is bound to be there cannot change the nature of union activities. He also submitted that finding given by the Labour Court is absolutely erroneous and perverse. The petitioner union is answerable to the member meaning thereby accountable to the members. The petitioner union having only the membership of Mill Company. No other persons became a member of the petitioner union. The decision of the Bangalore Water Supply is not applicable to the case of the petitioner union activities and while referring page 22/23, he again emphasis that Labour Court has committed further error in coming to the conclusion that petitioner union is an 'industry'. He also submitted that the function of the trade union is to satisfy grievance of the members viz. Textiles Industries. The petitioner " union is not running any Khadi Shop. He relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers & Forest Workers Union v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004(2) GLR 1488, the relevant page 1516, Para 20, Para 26(1) and Para 73 and he read over all these paragraphs by emphasis the facts that trade union activities are not satisfied the triple tests laid down by the Apex Court and considered by full bench of this Court. He distinguished the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Vasudeo Ambre v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 1988 Lab.I.C. 554 = 1988(1) LLJ 464. He submitted that this decision is not applicable which has been relied by the Labour Court because in that case, the question was challenging the refusal of referring the dispute by the authority and no real question has been examined by the Bombay High Court. He relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Kiran Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Janata kamgar Union and Others reported in 2001-I LLJ 1499 Para 2 that Society collects the subscription or some amount of maintenance from the members cannot to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Radhakrishna Bhakta v. Subramanya Shastri and Another reported in 2006-II LLJ 669 then decision of Apex Court reported in 2001-II LLJ 1064 in case of Bharat Bhawan Trust v. Bharat Bhawan Artists' Association and Another. He relied upon Para 7 that promotion of art or artistic talent cannot be satisfied the human wants and wishes and therefore, it is not an 'industry'. He rightly emphasis the nature of work which has been identified by the trade union that trade union has to work for workman / members. He relied upon one decision of Madhyapradesh High Court in case of Project Director, District Literacy Samity v. Ms. Mamta Shrivastava and Another reported in 2006-I LLJ 103 and then he also relied the decision of the Apex Court in case of Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma reported in 1997 SC 1855. He also relied upon the decision of Madhyapradesh High Court that State Farm Corporation is not held to be an 'industry'. He also submitted that recently by Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. Jaibir Singh reported in 2005-II LLJ 831, the decision of Bangalore Water Supply has been questioned and referred to larger bench for reconsideration. Therefore, decision of Bangalore Water Supply cannot be now, made to applicable or to rely in this case.