The court emphasized the importance of commonality of grievances in public interest litigations and highlighted the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing alleged violations of labour laws.

A. N. Varma, J.

1. This petition purports to be a public interest litigation launched by the Universal Proutist Labour Federation-a registered Trade Union of Delhi-professing to espouse the cause of workmen of merely 200 Glass Blowing and Glass Bangles Industries established at Firozabad arrayed as respondents in the petition. Neither the workmen nor the Unions of these industries are, however, the members of the Federation.

2. The grievance sought to be canvassed by the petitioner broadly is that the respondent-industries are violating the labour laws applicable to the State. It is alleged that though the workmen of these industries are protected by the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947, U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, The Employees Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1952, U. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, U. P. Minimum Wages Act, U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, their employers are denying to them the benefit accruing therefrom. The further allegation is that the enforcing agencies constituted under these enactments are paying little or not heed to the complaints filed by the petitioner on behalf of the workmen. On these allegations the relief claimed is that the respondents be directed to implement the laws mentioned above.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the averments made in the petition, we are clearly of the opinion that the petition is bad for multifariousness. Several causes of action wholly unrelated to each other have been sought to be combined by the petitioner. The petition is not based on any complaint which may be common to all the numerous industries arrayed as respondents. It is vaguely alleged that in regard to some, workmen, whose particulars have not been furnished, labour laws are being violated by the employers and the enforcing agencies are paying scant regard to the complaints filed by the petitioner. Which employers are violating which particular labour law has not been disclosed. The allegations are completely general and vague. Paragraph 4 of the petition is an example of such vague generalisation and hyperbole in which the petitioner has indulged throughout the petition.

3. Further, it is not denied that each of these industries has its own trade union fully competent to espouse their cause. Not a single trade Union has chosen to join the petitioner in this venture. And it has not been disclosed why those trade unions have not come forward to press the supposed grievance of the workmen or any section of them whose rights are stated to have been violated.

4. Be that as it may, the entire petition attempts to combine so many varying causes of action against such an unwieldy number of industries having no commonality of features of failings that any worthwhile judicial monitoring seems entirely impracticable. Each of the enactments, the breach of which, is alleged themselves have inbuilt mechanism for vindication of the rights violated and claims denied of the affected workmen. These forums are quite adequate and effective, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, to handle the grievances, if any. These are really for the same reason even the request for appointment of Commission cannot be accepted,

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invited our attention to the decision in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 and submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had interfered in somewhat similar circumstances. There also the grievance raised was violation of a number of labour laws and inspite of that the Supreme Court intervened at the instance of the People's Union for Democratic Rights and issued directions in favour of the workmen. That too was in the nature of a public interest litigation as here.

5. The decision cited is clearly distinguishable. That was a case where the workmen were engaged in a single industrial activity