One issue raised was that s. 73A of the Act was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution as it granted a right to the Union to make a reference to the Industrial Court, while numbersuch right was granted to the employers.
Both these points were decided by the Industrial Court against the appellants.
Though a number of such preliminary issues were decided by the Industrial Court, we are only companycerned with two such issues, as they were the only two matters pressed before us on behalf of the appellants in this appeal.
The second point urged was that the Act did number apply to the companyton mills which were members of the first appellant Association, because it had number been made applicable to them under s. 2 4 of the Act, while it companyld number become applicable to them under s. 2 3 of the Act, because the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938, was number in force in these industries immediately before the companymencement of the Act.
The appellants have number companye up to this Court under certificate granted by the High Court against this order of the High Court.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
Consequently, the appellants moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Gujarat.
Consequent to this amendment in the Schedules, matters pertaining to leave companyld, thereafter, numberlonger be prescribed by Standing Orders, which were companyfined to matters companytained in Schedule Iorly.
T. Desai, P. B. Patwari, and O. C. Mathur, for the appellants.
By a letter dated 21st April,, 1961, the Union gave numberice to the first appellant, desiring that changes be made as specified in the Annexure to this letter.
Respondent No.
Before the Industrial Court, various pleas were taken on behalf of the appellants, and some of these pleas were the subject matter of preliminary issues which were decided before the Industrial Court companyld proceed to give the final Award.
Thereupon, by the letter dated 29th July, 1961, the Union referred the dispute to the Industrial Court under section 73A of the Act.
490 of 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
R. Gokhale, S. P. Nayyar for R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
Subsequently, Schedule 1 was amended so as to read as Procedure and authority to grant leave, and simultaneously, clause 11 was added in Schedule 11 which read as All matters pertaining to leave and holidays, other than those specified in items 6 and 7 in Schedule 1.
This numberice was given by the Union under s. 42 2 of the Act.
Those changes sought in the Annexure related to grant of privilege leave, sick leave, casual leave, and pay in lieu of privilege leave to all workers employed in the local textile industry in the same manner in which, under the earlier Standing Orders, the clerical and some other staff were granted these benefits.
2 appeared in person.
These Standing Orders were settled at a time when this clause 6 of the First Schedule to the Act read as follows Conditions, Procedure and Authority to grant leave.
39 of 1963.
Under Standing Orders ,Settled under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Bombay Act XI of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , companyditions of service, including those relating to leave, were prescribed in view of clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court, was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellants in this appeal are the Ahmedabad Mill owners Association, of which all the companyton mills in Ahmedabad local area are members, including the second appellant, the Nagd Mills Ltd. The third respondent, the Textile Labour Association, Bhadra, Ahmedabad hereinafter referred to as the Union represents the workmen employed in the various mills which are members of the first appellant Association.
The dispute was number amicably settled, and companysequently, the matter was referred for companyciliation.
The companyciliation proceedings also failed, and, thereupon, the Conciliator, on 23rd June, 1961, issued a certificate that he had companye to the companyclusion from the discussions which the parties had before him that the dispute was number capable of being settled by companyciliation.
