Judgment

OZA, J. :- Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against a judgment passed by High Court of Bombay in Misc. Petri. No. 1946 of 1984 decided on 2-4-1986*. A writ petition before the High Court was filed by M.T.S.S.D. Workers Union, Pune and two of the employees in the establishment in which this union is functioning. In this Writ Petition an order was sought quashing the decision of the authorities concerned of the petitioner who by their order dt. 31-1-1984 informed the union about the scheme of the election to the Works Committee on the basis of the division indifferent constituencies. This order of the Com-mandant was conveyed to the respondent union. These Works Committees were to be constituted for the period 1984-86.

* Reported in (1986) 52 Fac LR 646 (Bom)

2. The question that was considered by the High Court was as to whether such a distribution was permissible under the Rules framed under Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that such a distribution of constituencies is not permissible in view of the scheme of the Rules especially Rr. 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Central Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that R. 39 when it talks of representation to the various categories and groups and class of workmen it contemplates that such constituencies be divided so that various sections, groups and categories of workers skilled, unskilled, clerical and otherwise may get appropriate representation. Learned counsel also relied on the proviso to R. 43 to justify the division of the constituencies which was done by the impugned order which was set aside by the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Works Committees are expected to go into day to day problems and they are expected to be so constituted that they bring harmony and better functioning of the industry and it is for this purpose. According to the learned counsel R. 42 contemplates only division in two constituencies that is those who are members of a registered trade union and those who are not members of the registered trade union and even while providing for such a distribution in R. 42 it has been further provided that where more than half the workers belong to one registered trade union then there is no need for any division of constituencies and election will only be by general vote of the workers in the industry. It was contended by learned counsel that this scheme of these Rules contemplates that where there is a union representing the majority of workers there is no occasion for any distribution of constituencies so that the union and the management with the help of the Works Committee may resolve day to day problems and the industry may run smoothly in the interest of production and industrial peace. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the scheme of the Rules is justified.

5. The constitution of the Works Committees has been provided for in S. 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under :

"3. Works Committee (1) In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months the appropriate Government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment so however that the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union, if any, registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926).

(2) It shall be the duty of the Wor