POONA LABOUR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 227 by the Poona Labour Union, a union registered under the Trade Disputes Act, 1926, for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra, respondent 1, to refer to the industrial tribunal for adjudication the dispute submitted jointly on 26 October 1965 by the petitioners and the transport manager, respondent 2, namely, the Poona Municipal Transport, a statutory committees of the Poona Municipal Corporation, running a transport service in the city of Poona.

(2.) On 25 February 1965 the petitioners submitted a charter of demands on behalf of the workmen of the said transport service. Respondent 2 refused to carry on any negotiations in respect of the said demands and, accordingly, on 2 June 1965 the petitioners served on the said transport manager a notice to go on strike under S. 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, copies of which were sent to the conciliation officer, Poona Division, the Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay. On receipt of the copy of the said notice, the conciliation officer admitted the said dispute raised by the petitioners in conciliation and stated conciliation proceedings. Several meetings were held, in the course of which one of the contentions raised by respondent 2 was that the dispute raised by the petitioners formed the subject-matter of a settlement which had been arrived at between respondent 2 and the Poona Municipal Transport Kamgar Sangh, respondent 3, which, according to respondent 2 represented the majority of the workmen of the said transport service. Ultimately, by a resolution dated 7 July 1965 the transport committee of respondent 2 resolved to make a joint application with the petitioners for referring the said disputes to the industrial tribunal. It appears that this resolution was modified by another resolution passed on 10 July 1965 under which it was further resolved that the application should be made only when the petitioners withdrew the notice of strike given by them. Accordingly, the petitioners withdrew the said notice.

(3.) On 27 October 1965 a joint application for referring the disputes raised by the petitioners was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour by the petitioners and the transport manager of respondent 2 under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the said S. 10(2), where an application is made by the parties to an industrial dispute, whether jointly or separately, for a reference of the dispute inter alia to the tribunal, the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the person applying represent the majority of each party, is to make the reference accordingly. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 2 November 1965 called upon the petitioners to produce their membership registers along with counterfoils of receipts for the months of July, August and September 1965 of the members of the petitioner-union who were employee of respondent 2. The documents asked for by the Deputy Commissioner were produced by the petitioners. Thereafter by his letter dated 29 December 1965 the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, intimated to the petitioners that he proposed to visit Poona on 7 January 1966 for making a spot-inquiry in respect of the aforesaid dispute and requested the petitioners to produce their said membership registers along with counterfoils of receipts in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Poona, before 7 January 1966 for scrutiny by him. By their reply dated 4 January 1966 the petitioners wrote back suggesting that if the authorities had any doubt about the representative character of their union, the only proper course for them would be to hold a secret ballot. By their letter dated 25 January 1966 the petitioners contended that their membership registers should be accepted as correct and on the strength thereof, the demands raised by the petitioners should be referred for adjudication. In the said letter, in the alternative, the petitioners again reiterated that a secret ballot should be conducted to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the workmen. As the petitioners' request to refer the dispute for adjudication to industrial tribunal or in the alternative to hold a secret ballot amongst the employees of the said transport service was not acceded to, the petitioners filed petition on 23 April 1966.