MAHARASHTRA SHRAMIK SENA Vs. GABRIEL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner questions the correctness, validity, legality, etc. , of the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court, Bombay, on April 27, 1995 in Applications (MRTU) Nos. 37 and 49 of 1992. Those two were the applications filed before the Industrial court by Respondent No. 2 herein, one was an application under Section 13 of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") and the other was under Section 14 of the Act. By the application under Section 13 of the Act, Respondent No. 2 prayed for the cancellation of the recognition granted to the petitioner. By the other application under Section 14 of the Act, Respondent No. 2 prayed for grant of its recognition. Both these applications filed by Respondent No. 2 having been allowed, the petitioner is in writ petition before us.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are more than convinced that there is no case made out for interference at our hands in our writ jurisdiction with the impugned judgment.

(3.) SECTION 13 of the Act contemplates that the Industrial Court shall cancel the recognition of a union if after giving notice to such union to show cause why its recognition should not be cancelled, and after holding an inquiry, it is satisfied that the membership of the union has, for a continuous period of six calendar months, fallen below the minimum required under Section 11 for its recognition. So far as the petitioner is concerned whose recognition has been cancelled by the impugned order, the relevant period admittedly is between March, 1992 and August 1992 i. e. , the period of six months for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the act. According to Respondent No. 2, during the relevant period, the membership of the petitioner had fallen below the limit prescribed under Section 11 of the Act and, therefore, the recognition earlier granted to the petitioner was liable to be cancelled. Upon this application, the industrial Court handed over the matter to the Investigating Officer Who, after Investigation, submitted his report. It is not in dispute before us that the Investigating Officer's report is not the final word in the matter, but it is only a piece of evidence which the Industrial Court has to scrutinise and that Court has to came to its own conclusion, on the relevant facts. In the present case, the Investigating Officer found against both the petitioner as also Respondent No. 2 in the matter of percentage of membership. The Industrial Court, after appreciating the evidence, disagreed with the Investigating Officer and found that the evidence warranted a finding that during the relevant period the membership of the petitioner had fallen below the minimum limit prescribed under Section 11 of the Act. That is essentially a finding of fact with which this Court in its writ jurisdiction will be extremely slow to interfere.