BOMBAY LABOUR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order dated 19 November, 1964, whereby the State Government, upon considering the report submitted to it by the conciliation officer, Bombay, under sub-section (4) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stated :

(2.) The only facts, which need be noticed in connexion with this petition are as follows.

(3.) Petitioner 1 is a trade union incorporated under the Indian Trade Unions Act and claims affiliation to the communist-controlled All-India Trade Union Congress. Respondent 3 union was at all material times a representative union of the workmen of respondent 2 Company which carries on business of manufacturing diverse goods mentioned in Para. 6 of the petition and has a factory at Sewri and an office in the Fort area at Bombay. In connexion with the terms and conditions of the workmen, respondent 3 union had made an agreement with respondent 2 company on or about 23 May, 1961. That agreement was expiring on 31 December, 1963. Petitioner 1 union appears to have organized to increase the membership of the workers in respondent 2 company in the register of petitioner 1 union. By a notice dated 17 January, 1964, copy whereof is annexed as Ex. B to the petition, the petitioner union informed the company that it terminated the first agreement dated 23 May, 1961. It also intimated that it would serve a fresh charter of demands in due course. It reminded the company that it represented the majority of the workmen and would not be bound by any agreement made by the company with respondent 3 union. The petitioner-union thereafter served the charter of demand stated 7 April, 1964, on the company. The demands related to pay-scales, adjustments, dearness allowance, bonus, working hours, provident fund, gratuity, leave/holidays, promotions, pension scheme and several other matters. On or about 19 June, 1964, the conciliation officer (respondent 4) admitted the demands for conciliation purposes. Meetings were held before the conciliation officer. At the meeting held on 9 July, 1964, one K. K. M. Rai, representing respondent 3 union, was present and made certain requests to the conciliation officer. What transpired at several other meetings held before the conciliation officer is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. It is sufficient to state that respondent 3 union made an agreement dated 12 August, 1964 (copy whereof is annexed as Ex. E to the petition) with the company in connexion with most of the matters which formed part of the charter of demands made by petitioner 1 union. The agreement was made by respondent 3 union as a representative union for the majority of the workmen of the company. The agreement was produced before the conciliation officer on 20 August, 1964. Ultimately, the conciliation officer made a failure report dated 2 September, 1964, to the State Government.