2 alone, which was the representative union, and number the appellant or any other individual employee who had a right to appear and act in the aforesaid proceedings initiated by respondent No.
the workers mentioned in Annexures X and B to the application amounted to an illegal strike.
As the attempt at negotiation also failed to evoke a favourable response from respondent No.
1, respondent No,.
1 and allowed to appear and defend the same.
1 be directed to award full wages to the employees who went on strike.
Appeal by Special Leave, from the Judgment and Order dated 16 11 76 of the, Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the order dated November 16, 1976 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad summarily dismissing Special Civil Application No.
1 went on strike on September On October 4, 1976, the appellant and five other employees of respondent No.
By means of another application of the even date, the appellant and fifteen other employees of the respondent requested the, Labour Court to declare the strike as legal.
1 was formed under the name and style of New Labour General Trade Union Ahmedabad which was registered under the Trade Unions Act on June 3, 1976.
M. Tarkunde, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur for Respondent No.
2 appeared as the representative and approved union for the processing industry in the local area where the mills of respondent No.
1 for the purposes of negotiation and requested it to fix a date for that purpose before July 10, 1976.
for the period companymencing from September 24, 1976 when they initially went on strike to the date, of resumption of work by them.
1 without any break or interruption.
1 under section 79 1 4 read with section 78 1 A C and section 97 1 of the Act and declared that the employees mentioned in Annexures A and B to the application resorted to an illegal strike with effect from September 24, 1976 and the companytinuation thereof was also illegal as it had been resorted to during the pendency of the aforesaid Reference No.
The dispute number having been settled by the parties amicably, the same was taken in companyciliation which failed.
1845 of 1976 filed by the appellant and another under Article 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question regarding the right of individual employees to appear or act in a proceeding under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Bombay Act No.
1 as the stand taken by the representative union in regard thereto was mala fide and, against their interests.
They also asked for a declaration that the strike resorted to by the employees of respondent No.
1 are situate, and filed written statement admitting that the, strike resorted, to by the, workmen was illegal.
The reminders sent by the new union on June 21, 1976, June 29, 1976 and July 2, 1976 were also ignored by respondent No.
XI of 1947 herein,after referred to as the Act where a representative union has entered ,appearance as the representative of the employees.
Vide its letter dated June 8, 1976, the new union raised demands regarding issue of permanent entry passes, casual leave, festival holidays, provident fund, Employees State Insurance, Bonus, Dearness Allowance etc.
2 viz.
On October 12, 1976, the Labour Court allowed the aforesaid application of respondent No.
Vide its order dated November 16, 1976, the High Court summarily dismissed the petition and declined to, give leave to appeal to this Court.
A further representation made by the workmen to the Management of respondent No.
1 made an application to the Labour Court praying that they may be impleaded as parties to the aforesaid proceedings initiated by respondent No.
the General Workers Union, 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 number be members of the representative union and is registered and recognised as such ,under the provisions of the Act.
1 on the ground that the union companyld number be treated as a representative union under the Act.
that it was respondent No.
1 struck work with effect from September 24, 1976 whereupon an application being application No.
21 11 of 1977.
Consequently on July 27, 1976, a reference being Reference No.
2 gave a numberice under sub section 2 of section 42 of the Act intimating thereby its desire for a change in respect of classification, pay scales, dearness allowance, casual leave, festival holidays and certain other industrial matters.
Thereupon, the, new union gave a strike numberice on September 2, 1976 pursuant thereto 131 employees of respondent No.
1 pursuant to the, aforesaid numberice of strike given by their new union was just, proper and legal and that the employees who resorted to the strike companytinued to be in service of respondent No.
1 845 of 1976.
176 of 1976, was made to the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad under section 73 A of the Act, wherein as a result of negotiations, an interim settlement appears to have been arrived at on November 17, 1977.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant thereupon made an application to.
Respondent No.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are Respondent No.
Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant and Kamalgiri, two of the aforesaid six employees, filed, as already stated, Special Civil Application No.
1 herein viz.
Without meaning to burden the record unnecessarily but with a view to companyplete the narrative, it may be stated that in May, 1976, a new union of workers employed in the companycern of respondent No.
As the demands were number agreed to, the dispute was taken in companyciliation which culminated in an amicable settlement between the parties on the basis whereof an award was made by the Industrial Court on September 29, 1975.
176 of 1976.
1455 of 1976 was made an the following day by the respondent to the Third Labour Court at Ahmedabad under section 79 1 4 read with section 78 1 A C and section 97 1 of the Act for a declaration that the aforesaid action of.
In the proceedings taken upon the said application of respondent No.
The numberice was followed by two other numberices dated March 22, 1976 and March 27, 1976under the same provision of the Act.
this Court for Special Leave which was granted.
which were number heeded to by respondent No.
KH SHMC 2724/RU dated September 13, 1974 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act in exercise of the powers companyferred on him under section 11 1 of the Act.
The, Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt.
A public numberice regarding the filing of this application was given in Gujarat Samachar on September 27, 1976 and a companyy thereof was also affixed on the numberice board of respondent No.
1, the new union made a representation to Labour Commissioner on July 10, 1976.
In 1975, the said union raised demands regarding wages dearness allowance, washing allowance, supply of shoes, uniforms, and casual, holidays.
1976 also failed to elicit any response from respondent No.
On December 22, 1975, respondent No.
Meanwhile, the workers of respondent No.
On July 6, 1976, the new union suggested a few names of its members to respondents No,.
Datta and K. Kumar for the Appellant.
1 on August 15, 1976 which was followed by representations to the Governor of Gujarat on August 18, 1976 and August 25.
S. Chithey, V. N. Ganpule, Mukul Mudgal, M. R. Gehani and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for Respondent No.
1 before the Labour Court.
The said employees further prayed that respondent No.
1845 of 1976 in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 227 of the Con stitution praying that the aforesaid orders dated October 6, 1976 and October 12, 1976 passed by the Labour Court be quashed.
The former application was rejected by the, Labour Court vide order dated October 6, 1976.
