Judgment

GHULAM HASAN, J.: These consolidated appeals by the three appellants arise out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bavdekar and Dixit, JJ.), where by the High Court confirmed the convictions of the appellants recorded by the Presidency Magistrate. Fifth Court, Greator Bombay, under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (No. XI. VIII) of1950) but reduced their sentences from six months rigorous imprisonment to three month s simple imprisonment and set aside against each of the appellant the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000. The appellants are the President and the Secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor Sabba, a Union of Textile Workers in Bombay registered under the Indian Trade Union Act.

It appears that there are about 2,10,000 Textile workers working in Bombay and about 35 per cent, of them belong to three different labour Unions. The first is called Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh which is recognized as a representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, on the ground that it represents not less than 15 per cent of such Textile workers. The second is called the Mill Mazdoor Sabha , of which the appellants are the office bearers, but this Union represents less than 15 per cent; and the third is Girni Kamgar Union representing the least percentage of workers. It is common ground that apart from the members of the above three Unions, a large number of workers representing about 65 per cent are unorganized and do not belong to any Union.

2. On December 9, 1949, the representative Union gave a notice of change under Section 42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter called the Act to the Mill Owners Association in Bombay claiming bonus for that year. On December 23, the dispute was referred by the Government of Bombay to the Industrial Court under Section 23 of the said Act. While this dispute was pending, the Industrial Disputes (appellate Tribunal) Act (No. XI. VIII of 1950) hereinafter called the Appellate Tribunal Act, came into force on May 20, 1950.

On July 7, the Industrial Court made the award and the same was published on July 13. 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 appellants made speeches on August 14, 15 and 16, exhorting the workers of the Textile Industry to go on strike. The Labour commissioner thereupon filed complaints before the Presidency Magistrate on August 28, charging the appellants with an offence under Section 27 of Appellate Tribunal Act. The Mill Mazdoor Sabha applied to be made a party to the appeal, but the application was rejected. As already stated, the appellants were convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, but their sentences were reduced on appeal by the High Court.

3. Two main contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants, firstly that the conviction under Section 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Act was illegal, because there was no competent and valid appeal against the award before the Appellate Tribunal and secondly that Section 27 of the Act is void as being opposed to the fundamental rights of the appellants under Article 19(1) (a) and (c), and 14 of the Constitution, Both the contentions were repelled by the two learned Judges who delivered separate but concurrent judgment. The contentions have been reiterated before us.

4. In order to deal with the first contention, it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Appellate Tribunal Act. Section 7 of that Act provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from any award or decision of an industrial Tribunal:

(a) if the appeal involves any substantial question of law; or

(b) the award or decision is in respect of any of the following matters, namely:-

(i) wages,

(ii) bonus or travelling allowance,

5. Section 24 (b) prohibits a workman, who is employed in any i