On August 9, the Mill Owners Association, which was dissatisfied with the award, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and an ad interim order was passed on August 10, directing how the bonus should be paid.
The Mill Mazdoor Sabha applied to be made a party to the appeal, but the application was rejected.
arc unorganized and do number belong to any union.
The appellants are the President and the Secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, a union of textile workers in Bombay registered under, the Indian Trade Unions Act.
Appeals under article , 132 1 of die Constitution of India from the judgment and Order dated 8th January, 1951, of the High Court of judicature at Bombay Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.
The second is calledthe Mill Mazdoor Sabha, of which the appellants are the office bearers, but this union represents less than15 per cent.
As already stated, the appellants were companyvicted by the Presidency Magistrate, but their sentences were reduced on appeal by the High Court.
87, 88 and 89 of 1951.
appellants made speeches on August 14, 15 and 16, exhorting the workers of the textile industry to go on strike.
675, 676 and 677 of 1950.
On December 23, the dispute was referred by the Government of Bombay to the Industrial Court under section 23 of the said Act.
Sangh which is recognized as a representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, on the ground that it represents numberless than 15 per cent.
of them belong to three different labour unions.
I The Labour Commissioner thereupon filed companyplaints before the Presidency Magistrate on August 28, charging the appellants with an offence under section 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Act.
XLVIII of 1950 hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal Act, came into force on May 20, 1950.
November 24.
It is companymon ground that apart from the members of the above three unions, a large number of workers representing about 65 per cent.
JURISDICTION Cases Nos.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India G. N.J.oshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him for the respondent.
1,000.
Bharucha and Dara Vania for the appellants.
of such textile workers.
in Criminal Appeals Nos.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. These companysolidated appeals by the three appellants arise out of the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Bombay Bavdekar and Dixit JJ. ,
On December 9, 1949, the representative, union gave a numberice of change under section 442 Of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, herein after called the Act, to the Mill Owners Association in Bombay claiming bonus for that year.
On July 7, the Industrial Court made the award and the same was published on July 13.
While this dispute was pending, the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act No.
XLVIII of 1950 but reduced their sentences from six months rigorous im prisonment to three months simple imprisonment and set aside against each of the appellants the sentence of fine of Rs.
CRIMlNAL APPELATE .
and the third is Girni Kamgar,Union representing the least percentage of workers.
The first is called Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor.
