Govinda Menon, J. - (1.) On July 20, 1954, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1)(c) of the Constitution that the Judgment of that Court dated July 2, 1953, passed in Special Civil Appln. No. 159 of 1953, was a fit one for appeal to Supreme Court as it involved a substantial question of law and it is in pursuance of such certification that the above appeal is now before this Court. A brief resume of the facts and circumstances, which led to the application for a writ of certiorari in the High Court, becomes the necessary for a correct appreciation of the question of law involved and may, therefore, be shortly stated.
(2.) The appellant which may hereafter, for the purpose of convenience, be called "The Mill", is a limited company owning and possessing a Cotton Textile Spinning and Weaving Mill situated in Poona, employing a large number of workmen who have a union of theirs. The first respondent is a workmen employed by the Mill and the second respondent is the Poona Girni Kamagar Union of which the first respondent is a member. Respondents 3 to 5 were formally added as parties in the first instance but their names were struck off as unnecessary at the time of the hearing.
(3.) The appellant was running 580 looms, for working which one weaver had been allotted at the rate of two looms; and when things were in that state on August 29, 1951, the Management issued a notice to the effect that from September 9, 1951, it was desired to carry on an experiment of four looms to a weaver for a period of 2 months, on 16 looms. If at the end of that period or before the expiry of the same it was found that the working was successful, the Management would introduce the scheme after giving the notice of change required under the Act. The object of this notice was ostensibly to introduce rationalization or rather efficiency system of work, if and when the suggested experiment proved successful. As a result of this notice on September 4, 1951, the Secretary of the Union wrote to the Manager of the appellant Mill intimating that under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act the Management could not legally introduce any change in the existing system of working without first giving notice of the change in the prescribed form to the representatives of the Union and workers and without going through the other procedure prescribed by the Act; and the Management were further informed that if they insisted in carrying on the change illegally, the workmen would be free to move the proper Courts. The notice also stated that the introduction of the new system would affect the workers' wages and cause great hardship; and that if anything untoward happened, the blame would be wholly on the Management, as it would be impossible for the Union to control the workers in the matter.;