JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. The petitioner is an employee of the weaving department of the night shift of the third respondent Mills. It appears that on March 21, 1950, a settlement was arrived at with the Mills with regard to the change-over of workers in the weaving department in the day shift and the night shift. On January 30, 1952, a notice was given by respondent No. 4 terminating this settlement. Respondent No. 4 Is the representative labour Union of respondent No. 3 Mills. On July 29, 1952, the Mills gave a notice of the termination of the settlement of the change-over and on July 30, 1952, a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 discontinuing the changeover of the workers of the day shift to the night shift, and this arrangement was registered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

It appears that the petitioner and all the other employees of the night shift were not members of respondent No. 4 labour Union and they made a grievance to the Government that the settlement arrived at between respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 3 was not a fair settlement as far as the night shift workers were concerned. Thereupon the Government Issued a notification under Section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act referring to the Industrial Tribunal the dispute between the employees of the weaving department of the day shift and the employees of the weaving department of the night shift.

When the matter came before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court realised the difficulty of respondent No. 4 representing all the workers of the Mills, and therefore it directed that an assessor should be appointed to represent the night shift workers. Government had referred not only this dispute concerning the third respondent Mills but of other Mills, and this order of the Tribunal was made with regard to all the Mills and the order was made on April 25, 1953.

An application for .review was made before the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion on June 5, 1953, that the order it had passed on April 25, 1953, did not apply to the Mills with regard to which registered settlements were in operation, and it took the view that in view of the registered settlement of July 30, 1952, it had no jurisdiction to arbitrate upon the dispute of the workers of the third respondent Mills. It is against this order that this petition is presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and the question that we have to consider is whether the fact that there is a registered settlement with regard to the dispute referred to the Tribunal by Government, debars the Tribunal from adjudicating upon that dispute.

2. Now, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal arises under Section 37 of the Act and that jurisdiction is set out in the following terms : "It shall be the duty of the Industrial Court" -- (and the relevant clause is clause (vi) -- "to decide Industrial disputes referred to it under sections 71, 72, 73 or 73A". It is not disputed that what is referred to the Industrial Court is an industrial dispute. It is also not disputed that it is referred to it by Government under Section 72. The view taken by the Industrial Court is that the fact that there is a registered agreement or settlement between the Mills and respondent No. 4 precludes the Tribunal from deciding the dispute and giving an award in respect of that dispute.

The position of a registered Union is dealt with in Section 30 of the Act, and that section provides that

"The following shall be entitled to appear or act in the order of preference pecified as the representative of employees in an industry in any local area--",

and the first in the order of priority is a Representative Union for such industry. Respondent No. 4 is a Representative Union and under Section 30 undoubtedly it is entitled to appear or act on behalf of all the employees. But it must be borne in mind that Section 30 is procedural in character and it gives a power-of-attorney, as i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document