ANANTA SHRIPATI BHORADE Vs. MEHER M R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in this petition. The petitioners 176 in number are employees of the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, the 5th respondents before us. Respondents 1 & 2 are members of the industrial court. The 3rd respondent is the State of Bombay and the 4th respondent is the Rashtria mill mazdoor sangh, which is a representative union registered as such under the provisions of the Bombay industrial Relations Act, 1946. The 5th respondents, to be referred to by us hereafter as the mills, put up a notice for the information of the employees stating that they had decided to discontinue the working of 1,086 ordinary looms in stages and that as a first stage in that direction, the mills had decided to stop 780 ordinary looms in the specified sections of its weaving department with effect from 3 November, 1959. About that time a large number of employees of the mills moved the labour court at Bombay on 16 October, 1959 for declaring the proposed action of the mills as illegal and for orders directing the mills for not giving effect to the same. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the mills challenging the jurisdiction of the court and maintainability of the application. That objection was uphold by the labour court. On 3 November, 1959 the mills stopped the working of 780 ordinary looms in certain sections of the weaving department.

(2.) According to the petitioners, upon the dismissal of their application by the labour court they moved the Labour Ministry of the State of Bombay for a reference to the industrial court under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. In the petition they state that they have reasons to believe that it was only because of the efforts made by them that the Government of Bombay made a reference under S. 99 of the Act. That position has been challenged by the respondents and it would appear from the record that there is nothing to show that the reference was made by the State of Bombay in pursuance of any efforts made by the other petitioners. It would appear on the other hand that the reference was made by the State of Bombay at the instance of the 4th respondent, the representative union.

(3.) After the reference was made by the State of Bombay, it moved the industrial court for orders restraining the 5th respondent from carrying out the proposed action of installation of automatic looms. The application seeking a prohibitory order was fixed for hearing on 20 October, 1959. The mills gave an undertaking to the industrial court to the effect that the 780 looms would not be dismantled pending the disposal of the application and that the status quo would be maintained.