B. K. MEHTA, R. J. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) IN this group of petitions a short but interesting question arises about the right of an individual workman vis a vis trade union and particularly representative union which has been invested. with the right of exclusive representation. The basic question in all these petitions is: Whether an individual workman can be excluded from initiating Industrial Court proceedings or excluded from such proceedings where the order is passed on concession made by the representative union resulting into some evil consequences for a workman or a group of workmen? This question arises in diverse facts and circumstances. In the first group viz. Special Civil Applications Nos. 1747 1023 and 453/79 it relates to the dispute between the petitioners and the respective mill company in the matter of bonus while in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1424/79 and 850/79 it relates to the industrial court proceedings taken for declaration on cessesion of workmen as illegal strike. By way of sample facts from each of the two groups are briefly set out hereinbelow so as to appreciate the precise question in proper perspective.

( 2 ) IN the first group of the aforesaid three special civil applications we have taken the sample facts of first Special Civil Application (No. 1747/80 ). Respondent No. 1 millcompany made the payment of bonus at the statutory rate in terms of the settlement between the millcompany and the Textile Labour Assciation (hereinafter referred to as the TLA) which is the representative trade union. The petitioners called a meeting of the workmen in the employment of the first respondent millcompany wherein petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed 3 representatives of the workmen in the employment who attended the said meeting. It is claimed by the petitioners that 80 to 90 of the workmen working in the first respondent millcompany attended the said meeting. The sixth petitioner is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act 1926 According to the petitioners the respondent millcompany ought to have paid to the workmen bonus at the rate of 20 per cent instead of 8. 33 per cent which is the statutory rate under the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 and at which rate the bonus was granted in terms of the settlement with the representative trade union respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioners therefore gave a notice calling upon the first respondent millcompany to make payment at the rate of 20 per cent in the year 1977 and also addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner of the State Government and requested him to hold conciliation proceedings and to refer the dispute to the competent court for adjudication in case of failure of conciliation proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the BIR Act ). The respondent mill company did not respond to the demand made by the petitioners and the Assistant Labour Commissioner respondent No. 3 herein also rejected the request made by the petitioners to hold conciliation proceedings and to refer the matter to the Court by the impugned order of 5/05/1979 on the around that since the Textile Labour Association respondent No. 2 herein was the representative union the petitioners were not competent to raise the dispute particularly because a settlement for the payment of bonus for the year 1971 lead been already effected between the mill company and the said representative trade union. The Assistant Labour Commissioner rested the impugned order on the provisions contained in section 78 of the BIR Act since the right of representation of the workmen was exclusively available to the representative union which has entered into the settlement in the matter of bonus for the said year. The petitioners therefore have moved this Court for challenging the impugned order.

( 3 ) FROM the second group of the last two special civil applications we set out the facts from Special Civil Application No. 1424 of 1979. Respondent No. 1 is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document