Desai, J. - (1.) Two unions of workmen employed in the first respondent Company M/s. Balmer Lawrie and-Co. Ltd. ('employer' for short) are at loggerheads and their inter se rivalry has thus landed in this Court. Appellant Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union ('non-recognised Union' for short) filed Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1984 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of See. 20(2) read with Schedule I of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('1971 Act' for short). To this petition, they impleaded the employer company and the Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union ('Recognised Union' for short).
(2.) Few facts giving rise to the writ petition may be stated. A settlement was arrived at between the employer and the recognised union resolving a number of industrial disputes pending between them. Clause 17 of the Settlement reads as under: "17. Arrears will be paid within two months from the date of signing of the Settlement. Further, the Company shall collect from each workman an amount equivalent to 15% of the gross arrears payable to each employee under this settlement as contribution to the Union Fund and this Amount shall be paid to the Union within 3 days of the payment of arrears by Payee's A/c Cheque." The non-recognised union the appellant apprehending that if and when settlement would be arrived at between the employer and the recognised union, there would be the usual clause for deduction from amounts payable to the workmen under the settlement for the benefit of the recognised union, Therefore the non-recognised union informed the employer not to make any deduction pursuant to the settlement from the payable to the members of the non-recognised union as and when the settlement is arrived at. Correspondence ensued between the parties which led to the. filing of the writ petition No. 473 of 1984. This writ petition was moved to forestall the settlement if any about any deduction from the payments under the settlement as and when arrived at. An undertaking was given before the High Court that the employer would give notice of the settlement, if it is finally arrived at and will implement the same only a week thereafter. On this undertaking, the writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter the settlement was arrived at which inter alia included Clause No. 17 extracted hereinbefore. The non-recognised union filed a fresh writ petition inter alia contending that Clause 17 permits a compulsory exaction not permitted by the Payment of Wages Act from the arrears payable to the workmen by the employer, without the consent of the workmen, who are not the members of the recognised union. It was alleged in the petition that if upon its true construction Sec. 20(2)(b) of 1971 Act permits such compulsory exaction without the consent of the workmen concerned, the same will be unconstitutional in as much as such union levy would force and compel the workmen against their will to join the union which has acquired the status of recognised union. Specific allegation was that Sec. 20(2) violates the fundamental freedom to form association guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(c). There were other incidental grievances made in the petition but the main thrust of the petition was against the constitutional validity of afore-mentioned section. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and after an unsuccessful appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court this appeal was filed by special leave.
(3.) Mr. Daniel Latif learned counsel who appeared for the appellant assisted by Mrs. Radha D. De'souja, the President of non-recognised union and also as counsel appearing for non-recognised union urged that if Sec. 20(2) is so interpreted as to mean that the employer or the recognised union can discriminate between the members of the recognised union and non-members though workmen of the same employer, the same is violative of Art. 14 and if it compels the workmen to join recognised union it is violative of Art. 19(1)(a) and (c).;