MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Mathurai for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1949 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mathurai and to quash the award made therein on 14-4-1950 and for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the State of Madras from enforcing the award passed by the tribunal and approved by it under G. O. No. 1491. By G. O. Ms. No. 5793 Development dated 7-12-1949 the Government made a reference of an industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and the management of the Meenakshi Mills Ltd., in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to that order to the Industrial Tribunal at Mathurai for adjudication. The annexure contained eight items out of which we are concerned in this application only with two, namely, items 4 and 6 which run as follows:

(2.) Mr. K.S. Jayarama Iyer, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, namely, the management of the mills has challenged the validity of the award on two grounds (1) that the reference by the Government was bad as there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as there was no, demand by the workers and no refusal by the management in respect of the items now in dispute, and (2) the Industrial Disputes Act and the award made in pursuance of its provisions contravene the fundamental rights declared by Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. (2) I shall take up the first ground. On 17-9-1949 a letter was addressed by the Secretary of the National Textile Workers Union, Mathurai, to the Managing Director, Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., in which it was stated that Sri Meenakshi Mills Workers Union had resolved to cease functioning as an independent Union and had decided to function as part of the National Textile Workers' Union and the workers of Sri Meenakshi Mills were being enrolled as members of the latter Union, that as a result of the merger of the Meenakshi Mills Workers' Union with the latter Union, a majority of the workers of the Meenakshi Mills were members of the National Textile Workers' Union; that the Mathurai Mills had agreed to pay to their workers 3 3/4 months' wages bonus for the year 1948 and that the Meenakshi Mills should also agree to pay bonus at the same rate. The other statements in the letter are not material for the purpose of this application. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar contended that there was no demand as such by the workers of the Meenakshi Mills, because the National Textile Workers Union could not make a demand on behalf of the workers of the Meenakshi Mills and also because there was no express demand for payment of bonus. I see no substance in either contention. The letter contains a categorical assertion that the majority of the workers in the Meenakshi Mills were members of the National Textile Workers Union and it was not suggested that the statement was wrong. If so, I fail to see why the demand made by the Union on behalf of the workers is not a demand by the workers. Mr. Jayarama Iyer relied upon the fact that in this letter the Secretary of the Union wanted the management to recognise the Union in the same way as the management of the Mathurai Mills had recognised it. In this connection he referred us to Act XLV of 1947 which amended the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926 by inserting Chapter III-A providing for the recognition of trade unions by the management. But the learned Advocate-General pointed out that the Act comes into force only on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint and he represented that the Central Government had not fixed any such date. Be that as it may, I fail to see how the provisions of this Act have any bearing on the question now before us, namely, whether there was a demand by the workers and a refusal by the management to give rise to an industrial dispute. Mr. Jayarama Iyer next addressed an argument based on Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act of 1926. That section provides that the general funds of a registered trade union shall not be spent on any other objects than those mentioned therein. One of such objects is the conduct of trade disputes on behalf of the trade union or any member thereof" (Clause d). The contention was that as only the 'conduct' of trade disputes is mentioned in the section, making a demand would not be one of the legitimate objects of a trade union. I must confess that I was surprised at such an argument being put forward. In the first place, there is no question here of any funds being spent by the address of a letter containing a demand on behalf of a section of the members of the union. In the second place, any trade dispute must originate with a demand. There is nothing in this contention.

(3.) Mr. Jayarama Iyer relied on certain observations in decisions of this Court, namely, Ramayya Pantulu v. Kutty and Rao (Engineers) Ltd., 1949-1-Mad L Jour 231 at p. 233 and 'Kandan Textiles Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Madras', 1949-2 Mad L Jour 789 at pp. 793 and 793. In the former case Horwill. J. said.