LexRAJA KULKARNI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 19S3 _ The result, therefore, is that we affirm the decision The state af West of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs. Bengal v. Appeal dismissed. Shaikh Agent for the appellant: P. K. Bose. 8erajuddin Batley. Agent for the respondent: A. N. Mitter. 1953 Nov. 24, Agent for ~he intervener: G. H. Ra,jadhyak8ha. RA.TA KULKARNI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. [PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S.R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] Constitution of India, arts. 19(1)(a.) and (c}-Bombay Indu;- 1-," trial Relations Act, 1946, ss. 3(32), 12, 13-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, ss. 24, 27-Strike pending appeal- Illega,lity-Olassification of 'Union as "representative" and ''qual?:. • fled'' according to percentage of inernbership-Infringenient of fu.nda. rnenta,l right to frcedoni of speech and to forni a,ssociations. A strike during the pendency of an appeal would be an illegal strike under ss. 24 and 25 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, even though the appeal io not a valid or competent one. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provided that a union may be registered as a" representative union" if it had a membership of not less than 15 per cent. of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area and if a union had a membership of less than rn per cent and not less than 5 per cent. it can be registered only as 'qualified union'' : Held, that the above provisions did not infringe the fundamen- . tal right of the workers to freedom of speech and expression and to form associations or unions ·mder article 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution. The classification of unions as" representative" and "qualified" according to the percentage of membership and giving the right to unions with a membership of not less than 15 per cent. alone to represent the workers was a reason~ble· classification and did not infringe the rule of equality before the law. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cases Nos. 87, 88 and 89 of 1951. Appeals under article 132(1) of ~he Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order d1J;ted 8th January, 1951, of the High Court of • • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 385 Judicature at Bombay (Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.) in Criminal Appeals Nos. 675, 676 and 677 of 1950. 1953 Raja Kulkarni and Others v. N. Bharucha and Dara Vania for the appellants. 111: C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N. Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the respond- The State of Bornbay. ent. 1953. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was Ghulam Hasa11 J. delivered by GHULAM HASAN J.-These consolidated appeals by the three appellants arise out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.), whereby the. High Court confirmed the convictions of the appellants recorded by the Presidency Magistrate, Fifth Court, Greater Bombay, under sect.ion 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (No. XLVIII of 1950) but reduced their sentences' from six months' rigorous im~ prisonment to three months' simple imprisonment and set aside against each of the appellants the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000. The appellants are the President and the Secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, a union of textile workers in Bombay registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. It appears that there are about 2,10,000 textile workers working in Bombay and about 35 per cent. of them belong to t):i.ree different labour unions. The first is called "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh" which is recognized as a "represent- ative union" under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 194(), on the ground that it represents not less than 15 per cent. of such textile workers. The second is called "the Mill Mazdoor Sabha", of which the appel- lants are the office bearers, but this union represents less than 15 per cent.; and the third is "Girni Kamgar Union" representing the least percentage of workers. It is common ground that apart from the members of the above three unions, a large number of workers repre- senting about 65 per cent. are unorganized and do not belong to any union .. On December 9, 1949, the representative union gave a notice of change under section 42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, '1946, hereinafter 386 SUPREME COURT REPO.RTS [1954] 1953 called the Act, to the Mill Own
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.