Jaswant Singh J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave which is directed against the order dated November 16, 1976 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad summarily dismissing Special Civil Application No. 1845 of 1976 filed by the appellant and another under Art. 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question regarding the right of individual employees to appear or act in a proceeding under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. XI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") where a representative union has entered appearance as the representative of the employees.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are: Respondent No. 1 herein viz. The Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad is an undertaking in the Textile Processing Industry which was recognised as such vide Notification No. KH - SHMC/2724/RU dated September 13, 1974 issued by the Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 11 (1) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 viz. the General Workers Union, Bhadra, Ahmedabad is a representative union of all the employees of the various undertakings registered by the Registrar as undertakings in the Textile Processing Industry in the local area of Ahmedabad City and city Taluka irrespective of the fact that the employees of any of the aforesaid undertakings may or may not be members of the representative union and is registered and recognised as such under the provisions of the Act. In 1975, the said union raised demands regarding wages, dearness allowance, washing allowance, supply of shoes, uniforms, and casual holidays. As the demands were not agreed to, the dispute was taken in conciliation which culminated in an amicable settlement between the parties on the basis whereof an award was made by the Industrial Court on September 29, 1975. On December 22, 1975, respondent No. 2 gave a notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 42 of the Act intimating thereby its desire for a change in respect of classification, pay scales, dearness allowance, casual leave, festival holidays and certain other industrial matters. The notice was followed by two other notices dated March 22, 1976 and March 27, 1976 under the same provision of the Act. The dispute not having been settled by the parties amicably, the same was taken in conciliation which failed. Consequently on July 27, 1976, a reference, being Reference No. 176 of 1976, was made to the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad under S. 73-A of the Act, wherein as a result of negotiations, an interim settlement appears to have been arrived at on November 17, 1977. Meanwhile the workers of respondent No. 1 struck work with effect from September 24, 1976 whereupon an application being application No. 1455 of 1976 was made on the following day by the respondent to the Third Labour Court at Ahmedabad under S. 79 (1) and (4) read with S. 78 (1) A. (c) and S. 97 (1) of the Act for a declaration that the aforesaid action of the workers mentioned in Annexures "A" and "B" to the application amounted to an illegal strike. A public notice regarding the filing of this application was given in "Gujarat Samachar" on September 27, 1976 and a copy thereof was also affixed on the notice board of respondent No. 1. In the proceedings taken upon the said application of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 appeared as the representative and approved union for the processing industry in the local area where the mills of respondent No. 1 are situate, and filed written statement admitting that the strike resorted to by the workmen was illegal. Without meaning to burden the record unnecessarily but with a view to complete the narrative, it may be stated that in May, 1976, a new union of workers employed in the concern of respondent No. 1 was formed under the name and style of "New Labour General Trade Union" Ahmedabad which was registered under the Trade Unions Act on June 3, 1976. Vide its letter dated June 8, 1976, the new union raised demands regarding issue of permanent entry passes, casual leave, festival holidays, provident funds, Employees" State Insurance, Bonus, Dearness Allowance etc. which were not heeded to by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the union could not be treated as a representative union under the Act. The reminders sent by the new union on June 21, 1976, June 29, 1976 and July 2, 1976 were also ignored by respondent No. 1. On July 6, 1976, the new union suggested a few names of its members to respondent No. 1 for the purposes of negotiation and requested it to fix a date for that purpose before July 10, 1976. As the attempt at negotiation also failed to evoke a favourable response from respondent No. 1, the new union made a representation to Labour Commissioner on July 10, 1976. A further representation made by the workmen to the Management of respondent No. 1 on August 15, 1976 which was followed by representations to the Governor of Gujarat on 18-8-1976 and 25-8-1976 also failed to elicit any response from any respondent No. 1. Thereupon the new union gave a strike notice on September 2, 1976 pursuant whereto 131 employees of respondent No. 1 went on strike on September 24, 1976, as already stated.
(3.) On October 4, 1976, the appellant and five other employees of respondent No. 1 made an application to the Labour Court praying that they may be impleaded as parties to the aforesaid proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 and allowed to appear and defend the same. By means of another application of the even date, the appellant and fifteen other employees of the respondent requested the Labour Court to declare the strike legal. The former application was rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated October 6, 1976. On October 12, 1976, the Labour Court allowed the aforesaid application of respondent No. 1 under Section 79 (1) and (4) read with Section 78 (1) A (C) and Section 97 (1) of the Act and declared that the employees mentioned in Annexures "A" and "B" to the application resorted to an illegal strike with effect from September 24, 1976 and the continuation thereof was also illegal as it had been resorted to during the pendency of the aforesaid Reference No. 176 of 1976. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant and Kamalgiri, two of the aforesaid six employees filed, as already stated, Special Civil Application No. 1845 of 1976 in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Art, 227 of the Constitution praying that the aforesaid order dated October 6, 1976 and October 12, 1976 passed by the Labour Court be quashed. They also asked for a declaration that the strike resorted to by the employees of respondent No. 1 pursuant to the aforesaid notice of strike given by their new union was just, proper and legal and that the employees who resorted to the strike continued to be in service of respondent No. 1 without any break or interruption. The said employees further prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to award full wages to the employees who went on strike for the period commencing from September 24, 1976 (when they initially went on strike) to the date of resumption of work by them. Vide its order dated November 16, 1976, the High Court summarily dismissed the petition and declined to give leave to appeal to this Court. The appellant thereupon made an application to this Court for Special Leave which was granted. This is how the matter is before us.;