BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS' UNION, BOMBAY AND ANR. versus BALMER LAWRIE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 21-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

492 
A · 
BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS' UNION, BOMBAY AND ANR. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
v. 
BALMER LAWRIE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
December 21, 1984 
[D.A. DESID AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1951, Articles 14, 1' (1) (a) and (c)-Sec. 20, 
Mahurashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour 
Practices Act, 1971 conferring exclusive right on recognised union to represent 
workmen in disputes-Whttht!r ultra virl!s the Constuution. 
Milharashtra Reco:nition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Practices A.ct 1J11,-se~. 21(2) (b)-E;xclusive Right conferred on recognised 
union to represent worknzen In disputes-Co11stitutional validity of-Art: 14 and 
19 (!)(a) and (c) of the Constitution. 
Industrial Disputes A.ct-Sel/lement between employer and recognised 
uni on· Provision for deduction of 15% from gross arrears payable to all workmen 
including members of unrecognised [Jnion-A1nount to be credited t• recognised 
Union's fund-Constitutional validity of-Whether unconstitutional 
vis-a~vis 
workmen of unrecognised Union. 
Payment of Wages A.ct-Deduction 11 ade from wages and salary payable 
to an employee-Such deduction not authorised by the Act but by a Settlement-
Consent of Parties for such deduction from wages-Validity and effect of. 
Section· 19 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Preven-
tion of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (1971 Act, for short) provides for 
recognition of a union if it complies with certain conditions specified in tbt: 
section. Section 20 enumerates the rights of a recognised union. Clause 
(b) of sub-sec. (2) of s.20 confefs an exclusive- right on a recognised union 
to represent workmen of an undertaking in certain disputes and makes the 
decisio~ or order made in such proceedings binding on all the employees while 
it denies such right to a workman to appear or act or to be allowed to represent 
in any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 except in a proceeding 
in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removaJ, 
retrenchment, termination of service or suspension of an employee is under 
consideration. 
After a strike, the respondent-employer entered into a settlement in 
respeCt of a number of pending industrial disputes with its union, which was 
H 
recognised under the 1971 Act. Clause 17 of the Settlt;ment provided that tlle 
.. 
.. ---.ii 
• • 
-
WORKERS UNIOK •. BALMER J.AWRII! CO. 
493 
company shaII deduct an amount equivalent to 15% of the gross arrears 
payable under the Sett1en1ent to each employee towards contribution to the 
fund of the recognised union. The appellant. a non.recognised union cballenaed 
in a writ petition before the High Court the constitutional validity of Clause 17 
of tbe Settlement on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that Clause 17 permits a 
cOmpulsory exaction not permitted by the Payment of Wages Act from the 
arrears payable to the workmen who are not the members of the recognised 
union; (ii) that section 20 of the 1971 Act is unconstitutional, since (a) it 
unquestionably denies to the work.men who are not members of a recognised 
union, the fundamental freedom &uaranteed under Article 19 (I) (a) and (c) 
inasmuch as it inheres the pernicious tendency to compel the workmen to join 
the union which has acquired the status of a recognised union even if it 
followed a socio-economic or socio·potitical philosophy contrary to the philosophy 
of non-members; (b) it denies to the unrecognised union, the right to effecti. 
vely participate in any proceeding concerning the workmen of an industrial 
undertaking, some of whom have formed a separate trade union and (c) it does 
not treat all the unions at par as the members of non.recognised union are 
compelled to be bound by the action of the recognised union. The Single Judge 
of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the same was affirmed in 
appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal by the appellant, 
HELD : 1.1. In order to appreciate the: controversy between the parties, 
a brief review of tbc Scbeme of the 1971 Act would be advantageous. On the 
advent of industrial revolution which aimed at mass production of commodities, 
large scale industrial units came to be set up resulting in concentration of 
workmen at one place under one employer. Trade union movement represent· 
ing the ora:anised labour developed as an adjunct of political party. The 
organised Labour as a vot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.