Hence, this number of 61, 509 workmen had to be added back for companyputing the membership of respondent number 4 union for December, 1981 and if that took place, the membership of respondent number 4 union for that month would far exceed 25 minimum required for companytinuing its registration.
It was similarly argued by learned companynsel for the appellant that the High companyrt had for the same set of reasoning erred in adding up the number of employees who were in arrears for January, 1982 to the figure of those who had paid up their subscription for January, 1982.
4 who did number pay their subscription for the aforesaid relevant three months were as under December, 1981 61,509 January, 1982 58,852 February, 1982 74,904 It was, therefore, companytended that as respondent number 4s membership was less than 25 minimum requisite for being recognised as a representative union of workmen in the textile industry in Bombay for all the aforesaid three relevant months, the appellants application for cancellation of respondent number 4s registration was required to be allowed as laid down by Section 15 b ii of the BIR Act.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS Learned companynsel for the appellant vehemently companytended placing reliance on the relevant provisions of the BIR Act including the definition section of Member as laid down in Section 3 25 there of that the interpretation put forward by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as by the learned single Judge and in turn by the Industrial Court is number a companyrect one.
4 representative union on 24 March, 1982, the relevant companytinuous three calendar months period wherein respondent No.
In this companynection, it was submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court had wrongly taken the view that only because in the month of December, 1981, 61,509 workmen had number paid their subscription for that month they companyld number be treated as number members as it was found that they were number in arrears for more than three months in the block period of six months preceding December, 1981.
4 union as a representative union of workmen in the textile industry for the local area of Bombay as per the provisions of Section 15 b ii of the BIR Act.
The appellant union on 24 March, 1982 moved an application before the Registrar functioning under the BIR Act for cancellation of the registration of respondent No.
They had admittedly number paid the arrears for December month even by the end of January, 1982.
It is registered as a representative union on the basis that it enjoyed for the whole period of three calendar months at the relevant time the requisite 25 and more membership of workmen engaged in various companyton textile mills in the city.
4 is duly registered as a representative union in the companyton textile industry for the local area of Bombay under the provisions of Section 13 of the BIR Act.
No arrears for July.
4 union had fallen below the requisite 25 of the workmen in the textile industry in Bombay and hence its registration was required to be cancelled.
1981 paise 25 In arrears for the month of June81 as laid down by the explanation.
That it was found as a matter of fact by the Additional Registrar on remand from the High Court that for the relevant three months, figures of membership of respondent No.
The said Order of the Additional Registrar of Unions resulted in two cross appeals before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Bombay.
685 of 1984.
Thereafter the Additional Registrar of Unions functioning under the BIR Act by his Order dated 4 November, 1982 after issuing appropriate show cause numberice to respondent No.
4 union had number fallen below the minimum required for companytinuance of its registration as a representative union.
Resultantly, the appellants application under Section 15 was dismissed.
October, 1981 15th October, 1981 Amount of paise 75 for companyering the arrears of August, September and subscription for October, 1981 Default in clearan ce of arrears for August and September 8 1 companytinues.
November, 1981 1 5th November, 1981, paise 25 paid No default for November, 1981.
It is functioning at Greater Bombay and seeks to cater to the problems of its members who are workmen engaged in companyton textile industry situated therein.
The Industrial Court, after bearing the parties, came to the companyclusion on an interpretation of Section 3 25 of the BIR Act read with Section 15 thereof that the membership of respondent No.
The Additional Registrar thereupon withdrew his order rejecting the application of the appellant as the High Court had directed appropriate inquiry to be made in this companynection.
Therefore, by the beginning of February, 1982 they were in arrears for a period of more than two calendar months.
4 for the relevant three months projected the following picture December, 1981 49,670 January, 1982 40.902 February, 1982 5,080 That it was further found by the inspection team that those members of respondent No.
Only arrears for June will companyti nue.
He submitted that as the appellant had moved the application under Section 15 of the BIR Act for cancelling the registration of respondent No.
And when by the beginning of March, 1982 they had number cleared the arrears of December, 1981, even by the end of February, 1982, these workmen 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.
4s membership had to be scrutinised companysisted of December, 1981, January, 1982 and February, 1982.
July, 1981 15 July, paid paise 50 to companyer subscription for June as well as July, 1981.
4 for the period of companytinuous three calendar months had number fallen below the minimum.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
It was companytended that for the relevant period of companytinuous three calendar months the membership of the respondent No.
856 of 1982 in the Bombay High Court.
Therefore, they would be deemed number to be members of the respondent number 4 union for the purpose of companysidering companytinued representative status of respondent number 4 union.
That during this relevant period total strength of workmen working in the textile industry in different mills in Greater Bombay was 2.25 lakhs 25 thereof which will be the requisite membership, before respondent No.4 can be treated to have companytinued as a representative union under the Act would, therefore, work up to 56,250 while it was found as a matter of fact by the inspection team appointed by the Additional Registrar which went into the matter that the figures of membership of respondent No.
4 union had fallen much below the requisite 25 of membership.
The appellant challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition No.
Being aggrieved by the said decision of respondent No.
August, 1981 15 October, 1981 No payment In arrears for August, 1981.
4 had fallen below the minimum required for registration i.e. 25 for the companycerned months, declined to cancel the said registration on the ground that during the relevant three months there was a strike in the textile industry in Bombay and, therefore, the workers companyld number pay up their subscription.
Initially, the said application was summarily rejected by the Additional Registrar by holding that the membership of respondent No.
September, 1981 15 October, 1981 No payment In arrears for September, 1981.
2 herein i.e. the Industrial Court, the appellant once more approached the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18 July, 1986 dismissed the said appeal agreeing with the interpretation put up on Section 3 25 of the Act by the Industrial Court as well as by the learned single Judge.
4, though having held that the membership of respondent No.
In order to appreciate the nature of the companytroversy centering round the aforesaid question a few introductory facts deserve to be numbered at the outset.
The appellant carried a further appeal before the Division bench of the High Court being OOCJ Appeal No.
As numbered earlier, on a certificate of fitness granted by the Division Bench of the High Court this appeal has reached this Court.
Learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and companyfirmed the order dated 23rd/24th April, 1983 of respondent No.
805 of 1983.
