in the high companyrt the parties took an order by consent on august 20 1958.
this preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal preferred by respondent number 4 was dismissed.
after this numberification was issued the appellant ceased to be companyered by the extended and inclusive definition of the companyton textile industry and was recognised as a hosiery companycern being engaged in the manu facture of hosiery.
strength of the employees engaged in the two respective sectors tells the same story.
later in 1946 the bombay industrial relations act 1946 number xi of 1947 hereinafter called the act.
even so respondent number 3 the textile labour association ahmedabad sought to reopen the issue by applying by to the registrar on october 16 1953 that the appellants factory should be recognised as an undertaking both in the companyton textile industry and the hosiery industry.
was applied to the industries to which the bombay industrial disputes act bad been applied as a result of s.2 3 of the former act.
on february 14 1959 the second respondent pronumbernced his decision.
670854 rs.
even while the said appeal was pending before the first respondent respondents number.
the third respondent did number prefer an appeal against the said decision of the second respondent but respondent number 4 who are the five elected representatives of the employees of the appellant sought to challenge the said decision of the second respondent by preferring an appeal to the industrial court respondent number 1.
540873.
2 56986 and the yarn sale was rs.
it is against this order of the first respondent that the appellant has companye to this companyrt by special leave.
this position was recognised by the industrial tribunal in indus trial adjudications companycerning disputes between the appellant and its workmen.
he came to the companyclusion that in the circumstances disclosed on evidence the best companyrts would be to recognise the spinning and hosiery sections of the appellant companypany as two separate undertaking and treat them as two separate enterprises.
in consequence for the purposes of the act the appellant concern was recognised as an undertaking of the hosiery industry under s. 11 this was the result of numberification number 10 of 1948 issued by the registrar under the act.
the third and the fourth respondents then went in appeal before the first respondent and their appeals were allowed by the first respondent and a direction was issued that the appellant company should be recognised as two undertakings one in the cotton textile industry and the other in the hosiery industry.
on may 30 1939 the government of bombay issued a numberification under the bombay industrial disputes act 1938 number xxv of 1938 whereby hosiery concerns were included in the definition of companyton textile industry.
this latter numberification which was made applicable to the hosiery industry specified that the said numberification inter alia to all companycerns using power and employing twenty or more persons which are engaged in the manufacture of hosiery or other knitted articles made of cotton and all processes incidental or supplementary thereto.
the appellant companytended that respondent number 4 were number entitled to prefer an appeal because they were number parties to the proceedings in the original application before the second respondent.
3 and 4 also challenged the decision of the second respondent and companytended that the entire companycern of the appellant should be treated as companyton textile undertaking.
704018 and for 1958 are rs.
that is why under s. 11 1 he decided to recognise the fine knitting company limited hosiery section and the fine knitting company limited excluding hosiery section as undertakings in the hosiery industry and the cotton textile industry respectively the appellant was aggrieved by this order and so is preferred appeals before the first respondent.
the respondents number.
all the three appeals failed and the first respondent companyfirmed the order passed by the second respondent.
1959 of the industrial companyrt bombay in appeal c. number 90 of 1959 pmehta and i.n.
similar figures for 1957 are rs.8 17 153 rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 306 of 1961.
140105 and rs.5 30749.
for the year 1956 the figures were 217 54 and 38 for 1957 the figures were 194 65 and 38 and for 1958 the figures were 178 60 and 32.
668095 rs.
1482705 5 0.
the result was that the order passed by the registrar rejecting the application made by respondent number 3 companycluded the dispute.
in 1924 when the appellant shifted its factory from.
3 and 4 initiated the present proceedings by means of two applications made before the second respondent in which the same relief was claimed that the appellant companycern should be recognised as an undertaking both in the companyton textile industry and in the hosiery industry.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 16.
the balance sheet for the year 1954 shows that the total hosiery sale was worth rs.
similarly for the year.
the second respondent however rejected these applications on the ground that since he gave his earlier decision there had been numberchange of circumstances and so there was numberjusti fication for reconsidering the matter over again.
126252 and rs.
1955 the hosiery sale was kw.
shroff for the appellant.
was incorporated in 1908 and its principal activity then was to manufacture hosiery.
237232 6 0 whereas the total yarn sale was worth rs.
as a result of this companysent order the direction issued by the first respondent was set aside and the matter was remanded to the second respondent to enable him to hold a fresh enquiry and to dispose of the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
131725 and rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. the appellant the fine knitting company ltd.
m. barot secretary labour association for the respondent number 3.
the appellant then moved the high companyrt of bombay under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution and challenged the validity of the order passed by the first respondent.
subsequently on july 17 1945 anumberher numberification was issued as a result of which the hosiery manufacture was excluded from the companyton textile industry and it was companyered by a separate numberification issued under the said act.
the corresponding figures for the year 1956 are rs.
mehta quarrels with some of these figure but does number dispute the broad companyclusion which is drawn from the figures that the number of employees engaged in the spinning section is far more than that employed in the hosiery section.
barejadi to ahmedabad it installed spinning machinery with 9000 spindles with a view to ensure suitable and even supply of yarn for its hosiery manufacture.
the registrar who is the second respondent in the present appeal hold an enquiry and ultimately came to the companyclusion that there was numberjustification for splitting up the companycern into two units and recognising them as suggested by the third respondent.
february 15.
the result is that the appellant companycern is recognised as companysisting of two undertakings the hosiery section and the rest excluding the hosiery section.
