C P SARATHY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The South Indian Cinema Employees Assocn. is a body regd. in September 1946 as a trade union by the Labour Comr. under the Trade Unions Act (Act XVI [16] of 1926). It contains, amongst its members a large body of employees of the various cinemas & picture houses in the city of Madras, including the Prabhat Talkies, the managing director of which is the petnr. in this Ct. Some, & not all the employees of the Prabhat Talkies, were members of this trade union in 1946. On 8-11-1946, this trade union submitted a memo, to the Labour Comr. of Madras demanding increased wages, dearness allowance, annual bonus of three months wages, increased leave facilities, provident fund & the adoption of proper procedure in imposing punishments. On this Memo, the Labour Comr, interviewed the representatives of some of the Cinema talkies & finally submitted a letter to the Govt. on 13 5-1947 to appoint an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the matters refd. to in his letter. Thereupon, on 205-1947 by G. O. Ms. 2227, Development, the so-called dispute was refd. to a tribunal with the following order of reference :

(2.) On 24-4-1950, the S. I. of Police, Central Crimes Dept. filed a charge sheet before the Third Presidency Mag. Egmore, against the petnr. on the ground that though according to the award, the management of the Prabhat Talkies ought to have implemented the same in respect of wages & dearness allowance with retrospective effect from 20-5-1947 & 1-1-1948 respectively, the same was not given effect to in the manner provided for in the award but that the wages & the dearness allowance were implemented only from 25-2-1948-& the increments were given only from 1-3-1949. Such being the case, the award had been contravened & moreover, it is alleged in the charge sheet, that the Prabhat Talkies did not employ a chief fcicket; examiner & an advance booking clerk as required by the award. Hence the charge sheet complained that the managing director of the Prabhat Talkies was liable for an offence punishable under Section 29, Industrial Disputes Act (Central XIV [14] of 1947). The Mag. took the case on file & issued notice to the person accused of the offence. The accused took the objection that the Ct. had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry because the award itself was void & ultra vires with the result that no offence has been committed. The objection having been overruled, the petnr. came up to this Ct. to quash the proceedings before the learned Mag. & our learned brother Somasun-daram J. considered that the case involved important questions of law which necessitated its decision by a Bench & that is how this cri. misc. petn. comes on before us for disposal.

(3.) Before elaborating the contentions on either side, it will be useful to have a bird's eye view of the legislative provisions on which the prosecution justifies the filing of the charge sheet. Prior to 1926, on the anvils of the statute book in India, there had been no enactment providing for the registration & recognition of trade unions & defining the law relating to such trade unions, though acts of Parliament on the subject of trade unions were prevalent in England long prior to that. Act XVI [16] of 1926 provided for the registration of trade unions, the rights & liabilities of regd. trade unions, the regulations regarding the same & various other matters. The expressions "trade dispute" & "trade union" were also defined, the former meaning any dispute between employers & workmen, or between workmen & workmen, or between employers & employers which is connected with employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour of any person; & the latter term as meaning any combination whether temporary or permanent, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen & employers or between workmen & workmen, or between employers & employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, & is said to include any federation of two or more trade unions. The word "workmen" was also defined as meaning all persons employed in trade or industry, whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute haa arisen. For the purpose of the present case, it may not be useful to notice the various provisions of the Act dealing with the subject of trade unions. By Act VII [7] 1929, the Central Govt. undertook further legislation making provision for the investigation & settlement of trade disputes & for other purposes. This statute provided for reference of disputes to Ots. of enquiry & to Boards of conciliation & special provisions were made for illegal strikes & lock outs. It was by Act XIV [14] of 1947 that the Govt. of India enacted for the investigation & settlement of industrial disputes & the preamble stated that "it is ex-pedient to make provision for investigation & settlement of industrial disputes & for certain other purposes". Section 2, Clause (k) defines an "industrial dispute" as a dispute or difference between employers & employers or between employers & workmen, or between workmen & workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. Clause (j) defines "industry" as any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers & includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation-or avocation of workmen. Clause (s) defines workman as meaning any person employed (including an apprantice) in any industry or any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward & includes, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during that dispute, but does not include any person employed in the naval, military or air service of the Crown. Section 7 provides for the appointment of industrial tribunals by the appropriate Govt. Section 10(1) is as follows :