LexMAHARASHTRA GIRNI KAMGAR UNION versus S. BHATTACHARJI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAHARASHTRA GIRNI KAMGAR UNION A v. S. BHATTACHARJI AND ORS. AUGUST31, 1999 [S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] B Labour Laws : Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 : c Sections l 5(b) (ii), 3(25) 13(1) and 16-Representative Union- Registration-Cancel/ation of-On ground that membership fell below the statutory minimum under S.13(1)-Number of members-Computation of- Subscription-Arrears of-For a period of more than three calendar months- Held : · "More than three calendar months" cannot be equated with "three D calendar months "-It would be four calendar months or more-In the circumstances of the case, membership. of the representative union has not fallen below the statutory minimum-Hence, application of rival union for cancellation of registration of representative union, rightly rejected-Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 15-Representation union-Registration-Cancellation of- Procedure to be followed-Held : Is the one provided under S.15 itself and not the one provided under R.28-A of the Rules framed under the BIR Act. Interpretation of Statutes : Welfare Legislation-Rules of interpretation-Held : Interpretation, which fructifies, not which frustrates, the benevolent scheme, has to be preferred. Words and Phrases: "Period of more than ·three calendar months "-Meaning of-Jn the context of proviso to S.3(25) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. E F G The appellant was an union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Its members were workmen engaged in cotton textile industry. Respondent No. 4 was registered as a representative union in the same H 89 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A industry in the same area under Section 13 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The appellant-union moved an application on 24-3-1982 before the Registrar of Unions for cancellation of the registration of respondent No.4 union as a representative union under Section 15(b)(ii) of the BIR Act on B the ground that for the relevant period of con~inuous three calendar months the membership of respondent No. 4 union had fallen below the requisite 25% 0 of the workmen in the textile industry in that area. The Additional Registrar rejected the said application. In appeal, the Industrial Court, on an interpretation of Section 3(25) of the BIR Act read with Section 15 C thereof, held that the membership of respondent No. 4 union had not fallen below the minimum required for con.tinuance of its registration as a representative union. The High Court upheld this order. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant-union it was contended that for the purpose of its application dated 24-3-1982 the relevant continuous three calendar D months period consisted of December 1981, January 1982 and February 1982; that the members of respondent No. 4 union who had not paid their subscription for December 1981 were 61,509; that on a correct interpretation of Section 3(25) of the BIR Act, a workman who had not paid his subscription for a particular month by the next month would be in arrears for more than one month; that the said 61,509 workmen who had not cleared their arrears E for December 1981, even by the end of February 1982, had to be treated to . be in arrears of subscription for a period of more than three calendar months, namely, December 1981, January 1982 and February 1982; that these 61,509 members would be deemed not to be the members of respondent No. 4 union for the purpose of considering continued representative status F of respondent No. 4 union, that they were out of consideration for computing 25% membership of respondent No. 4 union from all the requisite three months and, therefore, the appellant's application moved in March 1982 was required to be allowed. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. By the deeming provision as per the proviso to Section 3(25) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 existing prior to 1965, the legislature treated deemed arrears of subscription for three calendar months or even more to be a sufficient disqualification for a person to be continued on the roll of membership of the union for subsequent months. H However, the said proviso has undergone a sea-change from 1965 and as per j T - MAHARASHTRA GJRNI KAMGAR UNION 1·. S. BHATT ACHARJI 91 present form in which it exists on the statute book, a person would be deemed A to be a non-member only if his subscription is in arre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.