The provisions of a special legislation governing a particular industry prevail over the provisions of a general legislation, such as the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in respect of the conditions of employment of workers in that industry.

Headnote:
BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 - SECTION 78 - BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) ACT, 1966 - SECTION 31 - JURISDICTION - APPLICABILITY OF SPECIAL LEGISLATION - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 78 OF THE BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent No. 1, a bidi manufacturing company, was dismissed from service. He filed an application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, claiming reinstatement with back wages and other reliefs. The respondent No. 1 resisted the application on the ground that the petitioner and the industry were governed by the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and that the application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was not maintainable. The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's application, holding that the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, prevailed over the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Labour Court was correct in rejecting the petitioner's application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Court found that the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, were a special legislation governing the conditions of employment of workers in the bidi industry, and that the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were not applicable to such workers. The Court also found that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal to the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, prevailed over the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in respect of the conditions of employment of workers in the bidi industry? 2. Whether the petitioner had exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal to the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, were a special legislation governing the conditions of employment of workers in the bidi industry, and the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were not applicable to such workers. 2. The petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal to the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Labour Court was correct in rejecting the petitioner's application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT-By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur (respondent No. 2) on 2-8-1976, rejecting as not maintainable an application filed by the petitioner under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

2. The respondent No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis and also deals in the business of tobacco and Bidi leaves. In 1970 the petitioner joined the service of the respondent No.1. In 1973 the petitioner was transferred to Waraseoni in Balaghat District of Madhya Pradesh. On 13-10-1974 the respondent No. 1 served the petitioner with a notice to show cause why be should not be discontinued from service as he had not discharged his duties as per responsibilities of the post held by him. On 17-3-1975, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent No. 1 informing him that his services would stand terminated with effect from the date of receipt of that letter and that he would be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice though he was not entitled to the same. Therefore, the petitioner served the management of respondent No. 1 with an approach notice dated 23-4·1975 calling upon the management to set aside the dismissal order and to reinstate him. This not having been done, the petitioner, on 10-7-1975 filed the application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 claiming reinstatement with back wages and certain other reliefs. In this application the petitioner arrayed three persons as non-applicants, these being:

"1. Motibhai Kariya, Manager M/s Chhottabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Gondia, Tahsil District Bhandara,

2. Harsadbhai Dalal, Partner of M/s Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Gondia, resident of Nadiad (Gujrat),

3. Ramanbhai Patel, Partner of M/s Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Gondia, resident of Nadiad (Gujrat)."

These non-applicants resisted the said application of the petitioner on several grounds including one that the applicant and the industry of the non-applicants were governed by the provisions of the special legislation i.e. the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and rules made thereunder, the industrial premises of the firm M/s Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Gondia were licensed under the provisions of that Act, and therefore, the application filed by the present petitioner under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was not maintainable. This preliminary objection of the non-applicants prevailed with the Second Labour Court, Nagpur and rejected the petitioner's application under section 78 of the Bombay Ind2al Relations Act, 1946 observing in its order dated 2-8-1976 :

"9. Point No.1 :- On point No.1, I could not see how to assist the applicant to proceed with this application under section 78-D of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. This is not the first time that such an application has been brought by the alleged employee against the bidi industry. Even in the former past, number of such applications were brought by the workers or employees against the bidi industry and all such applications were under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The learned the then Judge. of the First Labour Court was of the view that the applications under Bombay Industrial Relations Act were not maintainable. The matter went to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, and in Revision Case Nos. 166/71; 167/71 and 168/71, 100/70, 50/71, 51/71, 52/71, and 53/71 and 54/71 and 93/70, the learned Judge of the Industrial Court in his exhaustive judgment passed on 27-6-1972 held that the applications filed under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a State Act, are misconceived and untenable. What I feel is that apart from taking the support from the view adopted by the learned Industrial Judge, when the applicant was serving a bidi industry and has lost the service because of any illega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document