B. J. DIVAN, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises a short question relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The facts giving rise to the petition are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner is the Manager of a Limited Company called Asoka Mills Limited. The Company owns a textile mill in Ahmedabad and carries on business of running the textile mill. Since the Company is engaged in the textile industry the relations between the Company and its employees are governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 Respondent No. 3 is a doffer employed in the Ring Spinning Department of the textile mill belonging to the Company. The duties and wages of doffers for the textile industry in Ahmedabad are governed by the Standardization Award published in the Bombay government Gazette Part 1-L dated 7th August 1954 at page 3904. it appears that the petitioner as the Manager of the Company was exacting from respondent No. 3 work which was not mentioned in the Standardization Award. Respondent No. 3 therefore filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Labour Court under sec. 106 complaining that the petitioner was exacting from respondent No. 3 work not mentioned in the Standardization Award as set out in the list annexed to the complaint and that this action on the part of the petitioner being a breach of the Standardization Award constituted an illegal change and that the petitioner was therefore guilty of the offence under sec 106 (1 ). The petitioner raised before the Labour Court two contentions of a preliminary nature in answer to the complaint. The first contention was that the complaint was not tenable since it was not preceded by a declaration of an illegal change obtained from the Labour Court under sec. 78 (1)A (c) and the second contention was that in any event no complaint could be maintained against the petitioner who was the Manager and that the complaint if at all could be only against the Company. Both these contentions were negatived by the Labour Court by an order dated 2nd March 1960. The petitioner thereupon preferred a Revision Application to the Industrial Court and in the Revision Application the same two contentions were urged which were urged before the Labour Court. The Industrial Court also rejected these contentions and held that the complaint did not suffer from any of the infirmities suggested on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon preferred the present petition challenging the decision of the Industrial Court on these contentions.

( 2 ) THE main question debated before us was whether a complaint for an offence under sec. 106 (1) could lie without a previous declaration obtained from the Labour Court under section 78 (1)A (c) that the change complained of was an illegal change. Mr. P B. Patwari learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in order to found a complaint under sec. 106 (1) it was necessary to first obtain a declaration from the Labour Court under sec. 78 (1)A (c) At an illegal change had been committed by the employer and that since this was not done in the present case the complaint was not maintainable Mr. P. B. Patwari relied on the scheme of the Act and the second proviso to sec. 79 and urged that there was a clear correlation between an application for a declaration of an illegal change under sec. 78 (1)A (c) and a compplaint under sec. 106 (1) and the correlation was that no complaint under sec. 106 (1) could be filed unless it was preceded by a declaration of an illegal change under sec. 78 (1)A (c ). Mr. P. B. Patwari argued that the construction suggested by him was the only right construction and that if any other construction were accepted it would result in various anomalies which could not possibly have been contemplated by the Legislature. We shall refer to the anomalies apprehended by Mr. P B. Patwari to arise from the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document