Wanchoo, J. - (1.)This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay raises the constitutionality of S. 114 (2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant is a cotton textile mill statuted in Bombay. It is said that the appellant had been continuously making losses from 1950 to 1955. References were however made under S. 73-A of the Act by the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, in respect of disputes relating to bonus for the years 1952 and 1953, which are said to be pending before the Industrial Court, Bombay. The case of the appellant before the Industrial Court was that as it had made losses there was no question of its paying any bonus for the years in dispute. It seems that at the same time there were cases relating to bonus of other mills pending before the Industrial Court and the appellant applied that its case should be dealt with seperately, and this prayer was acceded to. It seems that while the references were pending, an agreement was arrived at between the Mill-owners' Association, Bombay and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, with respect to payment of bonus for the years 1952 to 1957 and the agreement was to come into force with respect to each mill when it was signed by each member mill of the Mill-owners' Association. Clause (6) of that agreement provided for payment of bonus even where the profit made by a mill was not adequate to provide for all prior charges as per the Full Bench formula evolved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Mill-owners' Association, Bombay vs. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, (1950) 2 Lab LJ 1247 or even where a mill made actual loss, the minimum bonus being in either of these two cases 4.8 per cent. Of the basic wages earned during the year, subject to such mill being entitled to adjust the amount thus paid by it as the minimum bonus against any available surplus in any subsequent year or years under the provisions of the agreement. This agreement was registered and was made enforceable as an award against those mills which were parties thereto. The appellant however did not sign the agreement and therefore it was not enforced as an award by the Industrial Court against the appellant. Thereafter the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh wrote to the Government of Bombay requesting that the said award should be enforced against the appellant in exercise of the powers vested in the Government by S. 114 (2) of the Act. After necessary action under S. 114 (2), the Government of Bombay issued a notification dated July 31, 1956, directing that the award made by the Industrial Court on March 13, 1956, for payment of bonus for the years 1952 and 1953 and also for the years 1954 to 1957 be enforced against the appellant.
(2.)This was followed by a writ petition by the appellant in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of S. 114 (2) and also challenging the power of the State Government to issue such a notification under that provision. The petition was however dismissed on October 9, 1956. There was then an appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court in which also the appellant failed. The appellant then applied for a certificate to enable it to file an appeal to this Court, which was granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(3.)Two main points have been urged on behalf of the appellant before us. In the first place, it is urged that S. 114 (2) is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the second place, it is urged that even if S. 114 (2) is constitutional, the notification has gone beyond the powers conferred on the State Government by that section and therefore the notification is bad.