LexAHMEDABAD MILLOWNERS' ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus I. G. THAKORE, PRESIDENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G - H AHMEDABAD MILLOWNERS' ASSOCIATION & ANR. l'. I. G. THAKORE, PRESIDENT & ORS. January 20, 1967 [M. ffIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.j Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 (Bombay Act 11 o/ 1947), s. 2(3)-Appllcabillly of Act to cotton industry In Ahmedabad-Bombay Industrial Disputes Act 1938 whether repealed by the (Central) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Constitution of India, Art 14-Re#rence of dispute by Union of Workmen under s. 13A of Bombay Act 11 of 1947-Section in not giving similar right to employers whether violates Art. 14. A dispute regarding amendment of rules relating to privilege leave etc. arose between the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association and the union of workmen employed in tho textile industry. After conciliation proceedini:s were declared by the Conciliator to have failed, the union referred the dispute to the Industrial Coun under s. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Industrial Coun decided against the Millownen who filed a writ petition in the High Coun and thereafter appealed to this Coun. It was urged on behalf of tho appellants that (i) s. 73A was viola· tive of Art. 14 of the Constitution since it gave a ri~ht to the workers' union to make a reference but not to tho employer (ii) the Act bad not been made 3pplicable to the cotton industry at Ahmedabad under s. 2( 4) and it was not applicable under s. 2(3) because the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 was repugnant to the (Central) Industrial Disputea Act, 1947 and· must be deemed to havo been repealed. HELD: (i) Section 73A was not violative of Art. 14. Whenever any industrial dispute arises the employer can always emure arbitration of that dispute by making an offer to the union under s. 66 of the Act, whereupon a registered and approved union _is compelled to agree to submission of the dispute to arbitration. Clearly therefore there. wu no need to make any provision empowering the employer to make a refer· once of the dispute for '1rbitration to the Industrial Court. On the other hand if a Union wants a dispute to be settled and even offers that tho dispute be submitted to arbitration under s. 66 of the Act, tho employer can refuse, whereupon the union would be left without any remedy. It is obvious that s. 73A was enacted to fill this gap and place the union on parity with the employer so as to enable the union to have any d~ute settled by arbitration even when the employer does not agree to arbitra· tion. This section, in these circumstances did not at all require that the right grant~d to· the union should also be granted to the employer. [441 G·HJ There was no difference in the procedure to be followed by the Indus- trial Coun in a reference under s. 73A and that to be followed when the reference is under s. 66. In both the procedure under ,.. 92 bad to be followed. [443 B·F] (ii) Chapter V of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act 1938 wu not repugnant to the Central Act of 1947 and therefore continued to be in force, and consequently under s. 2(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relatiom Act 1947 the latter Act became applicable to the industry of the appellants and did not require, a notification under s. 2(4) to make .it applicable [446 G-H; 447 A·B) 438 SUPllBIO OOUl.T UPOl.TS [1967] 2 S.C.lt. Ez Parle McLean, 43 C.L.R. 472 Victoria and Others v, TM Com- A monw.ealth of A1utralia and Others, 58 CL.R. 618, Zaverbliai AmaidaJ v. The State of Bombay, (1955) I S.C.R. 799, Ch. Tik4 Ramji & Ors. v. The State o/ Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1956) S.C.R. 392 and De.ep ChanJI v. The Stale of Uttar Pradesh and Other:, (1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8. QVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 490of1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1964 8 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 39 of 1963. S. T. Desai, P. B. Patwari, and 0. C. Mathur, for the appel- lants. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person. H. R. Gokha/e, S. P. Nayyar for R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bbugava, J. The appellants in this appeal arc the Ahmedabad Millowners Association, of which all the cotton mills in Ahmeda- c bad local area are members, including the second appellant, the D Nagri Mills Ltd. The third respondent, the Textile Labour Asso- ciation, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") represents the workmen employed in the various mills which are mem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.