GIRJA SHANKAR KASHI RAM versus THE GUJARAT SPLNNING & WEAVING CO. LTD.

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 30-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
E,,,~sin 
Relation 14 tAt 
Bh0W1a Collin.1 
\'. 
TJ.,ir Wor4:mtn 
Se1Ur J. 
I96Z 
J-ry 30. 
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
these malis were on persona.I work. 
The word 
"persona.I" is obviously used in the Bt'nce of work 
for an individual as distinguished from work for 
the Coal mine as a.n institution. These malis were 
undoubtedly working for the officers as individuals. 
ThereCore they were on persona.I 
work. 
For these reasons in our view the malis in 
the present case were not entitled to any bonus 
under the Bonus Scheme. As in our opinion the 
order of ruference does not raise any question as 
to whether the malis were entitled to bonus apart 
from the Ronus ::icbeme, it is unnecessary for us to 
ex presa any opinion on that question and we do 
not do so. 
The result is that this appeal is allowed and 
we set aside the award of the Tribunal in so far as 
it is concerned with the two points of dispute ear-
lier set out which had been referred to it. \\·e do 
not think it a fit ca.so to make any order for 
cos ta. 
Appe,al allowe.d. 
GIRJA SHANKAR KASH! HAM 
v. 
THE GUJABAT SPlNNING & 
WEAVING CO. LTD. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKA!! and K. :N'. 
WANC!tOO, ,TJ.) 
lndu.tria/ Dilpuk-Erclu8ive right 
of Reprt3entalive 
Union to repreaent emplnyee•-Bomhay IndU81rtal Relatinns Act 
(Xlo/ 1947) ••, 27A, J2, JJ, 42 (4). 
The Gujarat Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., closed its 
business on May 14, 1953, and •old its asscrs to Tarun Com-
mercial Mills Co. Ltd. The old company had discharged all 
its workmen when it closed its business. 
The new company 
re·started the business after a week an<l took in its service the 
workmen of the old rompany. 
When the closure took place 
a dispute was pending hetween the old company and its 
v.·orkmen lvith respect to bonus. 
l'hc ·rextile Labour Associa· 
tion, which is a Representative Union of the textile wockers in 
the city of Ahmedabad, filed an application before the Labour 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
891 
Appellate Tribunal where the dispute was pending. The 
matter was compromised and the old company agreed to pay 
some agreed bonus. The textile J.abour Association gave an 
undertaking not to claim compensation in any other way in 
any future proceeding. 
Later !'>n, 376 employees of the old company gave a 
notice under s. 42(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 
1947, and claimed compensation. The Textile Labour Asso-
ciation made an appearance before the Labour Court and 
contended that the application should be dismissed iii view of 
the compromise arrived at before the Labour Appellate Tri-
bunal. The Labour Court accepted the contention and dis-
missed the application. The workmen went in appeal to the 
Industrial Court but their appeal was also dismissed. 
They 
made a petition in the Higl) Court under Art. 227 of the 
Constitution but that was summarily rejected. They have 
come in appeal to this Court by special leave. 
Held, that where a Representative Union appears in 
any proceeding under the Act, no one else can be allowed to 
appear, not even the employee at whose instance the proceed-
ings might have been siarted under s. 42(4). Where che 
appearance is by an·y representative of the employees other than 
a Representative Union, the authorities under s. 32 can per-
mit the employee to appear himself in all proceedings before 
them. The employee is entitled to appear through any per-
son in certain proceedings sprcified in s. 33. 
However, when-
ever the Representative Union makt"s an appearance, even 
the employee rannut appear in any proceeding under the Act, 
and the representation must be confined only to the Repre-
sentative Union. The complete ban laid bys. 27A on repre-
sentation otherwise than through a representative of employees 
remains complete where the representative of employees is a 
Representative Union that has appeared. If the representa· 
tive of employees that has appeared is other than the Repre-
sentative Union, ss. 32 and 33 provide for exceptions. 
The bona fides or mala fides of the representative of employees 
can have nothing to do with the ban imposed Ly s. 27 A on 
the appearance of any one else except the representative of 
employees ao defined in •· 30. 
The argument based on the so called tyranny of a 
Representative Union or its motives in taking the action it 
may choose to take in any proceedings after it appears can 
have no relevance if the intention of the legislature is perfectly 
clear from

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