RAJA KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applts. in these three appeals are the president and the secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, a union of the textile workers in Bombay registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. There are two other unions with which we will be concerned in the present appeals. They are, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which has been registered as a representative union of the textile workers in Bombay under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (Bom. XI [11] of 1947), and the Girni Kamgar Union. It appears from the evidence that towards the end of 1949 there was a dispute between the textile workers and the Millownera' Assocn. with regard to bonus claimed by the former for the year 1949 to make up as they put it the deficit in the living wage and in order to obtain an adequate share in the profits of the industry. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which made an award after hearing as the representatives of labour the Rashtriya Mill Mazoor Sangh, which was entitled to represent the textile workers under the provisions of Section 30 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. At the time when the disputo was referred to arbitration, there was no provision for any party aggrieved by the award filing an appeal; but during the pendency of the dispute there came into force the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, under which a party aggrieved by the award made by the Industrial Ct. could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which it would be convenient for the purpose of the present appeals to refer to as the Appellate Tribunal Act. The Industrial Ct. made its award on 7-7-1950, and the Millowners' Assocn. filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on 9-8-1950. Daring the pendency of these appeals on 14-8-1950, the three applts. made speeches, which, it is no longer in dispute, exhorted the audience composed principally of the members of the Mill Mazoor Sabha and other unorganised workers of the textile industry inciting them to go on strike. The prosecution case was that the applts. consequently committed an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Act. That section provides :

(2.) NOW, the applts. did not specifically admit that they had incited the workers in the textile industry to go on a strike during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; bub it is no longer in dispute that they had done so, and the principal defences which have been pressed before us on behalf of the applts. are those of law. It is contended by Mr. Purshottam, on behalf of the applts. , that, in the first instance, there was no valid appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal at the time when the applts. made the speeches inciting workers in the textile industry to go on a strike. It is said, in the second instance, that the Industrial Relations Act is now void of the Constitution, inasmuch as it contravenes the fundamental right of the workers under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution to form a Trade Union. It is not in dispute that there is nothing in the Industrial Relations Act which prevents any one from forming any Trade Union. As a matter of fact, the Union, of which the applts. are the President and the Secretaries has been registered as a Trade Union under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, and there is nothing in the Industrial Relations Act which invalidates the registration of the Trade Union or renders the Union an illegal Union. It is contended, however, that the right to form a Trade Union includes a right to form a living Union. In order that the Union should be living, it must have a right to represent before a conciliator, a conciliating board, in any arbitration proceedings and before the Industrial Tribunal those workers who are members of the Union. It must also have a right to represent those workers upon the joint Committees which are provided for under the Industrial Relations Act. The Act denies to the members of any Union which is not a representative Union, these rights. The scheme of the Act is that the labour in any industry should be represented in the matters which have been mentioned above Toy a Union which has been registered as a representative Union. The principal qualification for being registered as a representative Union is that it must) have the largest membership of the workers organised in Trade Unions in the industry, and in the second instance, such membership must not be less than 15 per cent. of the total number of workers employed in the Industry. It is said that such a Union obviously represents a very small minority of the workers employed in the industry, and the result of allowing such a Union to represent; labour whether in conciliation proceedings, arbitration proceedings or before the Industrial Ct. is practically to disfranchise in the matter of re- presentation before such bodies the majority of the workers employed in the industry. II Unions other than Trade Unions registered as representative Unions cannot represent their own workers before the conciliator, the conciliation board, the arbitrator or the Industrial Ct. in matters before them, for which provision is made in the Act, there is nothing very much which the Unions other than representative Unions can do. It is pointed out that there are other provisions of the Act under which a Union other than a representative Union need not be given by the employers a notice of change. The employers, can, if they wish to give a notice of a change, give it only to the representative Union. If a member of a Union other than a representative Union wishes to give notice of a change to an employer, he must give the notice through the representative Union. Otherwise, it is not valid as a notice of a change under the Industrial Relations Act. It is contended before us on behalf of the applts. that in such a case the right which remains to the workers to organise themselves into Unions other than the representative Unions is an illusory right, and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act is invalid, in ao far as it renders the right to form Unions illusory so far as the workers who are not members of the representative Unions are concerned.

(3.) IT is said next that even if we are not prepared to accept the contention that the whole of the Industrial Relations Act is void as contravening the provisions of Article 19 (1) (c), and Section 27a and Section 30 of the Act are void on that account : Section 30 of the Act says :