LexSANTURAM KHUDAI versus KIMATRAI PRINTERS & PROCESSORS (P) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
387
SANTURAM KHUDAI
v.
KIMATRAI PRINTERS & PROCESSORS (P) LTD. & ORS.
December 9, 1977
(N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ .. ]
Bombay l11dustrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. XI of 1947),
s. 80 r /w s 27A, scope of-Right of the individual- employee to appear or act
in a proceeding under the 1946 Act, where a reprlisentative union has entered
appearance as the representative of the employees.
Respondent No. 1 is an undertaking in the Textile Processing Industry which
A
B
was recognised as such under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
Respon~
C
dent No. 2 namely, the General Workers' Union1, Bhadra, Ahmedabad is a
representative union of all the employees of the various undertakings registered
by the Registrar as undertakings in the Textile Processing Industry in the local
area of Ahmedabad city and city Taluka irrespective of the fact
that
the
employees of any of the aforesaid undertakings may or may not be members
of the representative union and is registered and recognised as such under 'the
provisions of the Act. An industrial reference No. 176/1976 was made to the
Industrial Court at Ahmedabad on 27-7-76 as respondent No. I did not agree
to a desire oJ respondent No. 2 for a change in respect of classification, pay
D
scales, dearness allowance, casual leaves, festival holidays and certain other
industrial matters. In May, 1976 a new rival union was formed under the nanie
and style o{ "New Labour General Trade Union, Ahmedabad"
which
was
registered under the Trade Unions Act on June 3, 1976. This new Union by
its letter dated June 8, 1976, raised certain demands regarding issue of perma·
nent entry passes, casual leave, festival holidays, provident fund, Employees
State Insurance Scheme, bonus, dearness allowance which were not heeded to
by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the Union could not be treated as a
representative union under the Act. Since every effort of theirs failed to elicit
E
any response from respondent No. 1, the New Union gave a strike notice on
September 2, 1976.
Pursuant thereto 131 employees of respondent No. I
went on strike on September 24, !976, whereupon an application No. 145517&
was made on the following day, by respondent No. I to the Third Labour
Court at Ahmedabad u/s. 79(1) and (4) r/w ss. 78(1)(A)(C) and 97(1)
of the Act for a declaration that the action of tbe
workers
mentioned
in
Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the application amounted to an illegal strike. Jn
the said proceedings respondent No. 2 appeared as
the
representative
and
approved union for the processing industry in the local area· where the mills
F
of respondent No. 1 are situate and filed written statement admitting that the
strike resorted to by the workmen was illegal. On October 4, 1976, the appel·
lant and five other employees of respondent No. 1 made an application to the
said Labour Court for impleading them as parties to the aforesaid proceedings
No. 1455176 and allowing them to appear and defend the same. On the same
day, the appellant and 15 other employees of resp1lndent No. l requested the
Labour Court to declare the strike as legal. The aforesaid application for
being impleaded as parties was rejected by the Labour Court, as per its order
dated 6-10-76.
On 12-10-76, the Labour Court allowed the application No.
G
1455 of 1976 of respondent No._ I u/s. 79(1) and (4) read with
ss. 78(1)(A)(C) and 97(1) of the Act and declared that the employees men-
tioned in Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the application resorted to an illegal strike
w.e.f. 24-9-1976 the continuation whereof was also illegal as it
had
been
resorted to during the pendency of the reference No. 176 of 1976, wherein as
a result of negotiations, an interim settlement was arrived at on November 17,
1977. A special Civil Application No. 1845/76 filed by the appellants under
Art 227 of the Con•titution for quashing the two orders of the Labour Court
dated 6-10-76 and 12-10-76 was dismissed in limine by
tlie
Gujarat
High
ff
Court.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
!2-l 114SCI/77
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
HELD : ( 1) The legislative intent underlying the scheme of the Bombay
Industrial Relations Act being to inculcate and encourage the practice of collec-
tive bargaining so that the Jabour is neither exploited nor victimised and indus-
trial peace and harmony is ensured, the provisions of the Act are designed Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.