S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order of the Regional Conciliation Officer, Lucknow, rejecting the application of Uttar Pradeshiya Shramik Maha Sangh Lucknow seeking to initiate conciliation proceedings before that officer. The petitioner No. 1 is the aforesaid Sangh and the petitioner No. 2, Anwar Ali Rizvi, is a workman of Ram Chandra & Sons Sugar Mills Limited Bam Banki. The second petitioner was added during the hearing of this case with the permission of the Court. The petitioners were also permitted to file a supplementary affidavit giving additional facts in support of their case. The petition involves, inter alia the constitutionality of Section 6-1 (3) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and of rule 40 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules 1947 made under that Act. There is not much controversy about the facts on which this petition is founded. Very briefly the case of the petitioners as stated in their two affidavits is this.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 which will be referred to in this judgment as the Sangh, is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. It is a federation of 23 Trade Unions ail of which are affiliated to it and are registered under the aforesaid Act. The petitioner No. 2, Anwar Ali Rizvi, is a workman employed in the Ram Chandra. & Sons Sugar Mills (Private) Limited in' Bara Banki. The petitioners state that there were several disputes between the workmen of some of the Trade Unions affiliated to the Sangh and their employers. The Sangh made several applications before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Lucknow praying that a Conciliation Board be constituted for the settlement of the dispute in each case, But all these applications were rejected by that Officer on the ground that the Sangh was not qualified to represent any workman in conciliation proceedings in view of the provisions of Rule 40 Sub-rule (1). The proviso to that Sub-rule enjoins that no officer of a Federation of Union shall be entitled to represent the parties (in an industrial dispute) unless the Federation has been approved of by the Labour Commissioner for this purpose. The amended rule also laid down that an application for the approval of a Federation of Unions for representing the parties may be made to the Labour Commissioner but the. proviso to that rule enjoins that no Federation of Unions shall be entitled to apply for approval unless a period of two years has elapsed since its formation. The rule further provides that the Labour Commissioner, after making such enquiries as he deems fit, may approve of the Federation or reject its application. Both the petitioners complain that, as a result of the amended Rule 40 read with Section 6-I (3) of the Act the Sangh has been deprived of the opportunity of initialing conciliation proceedings on behalf of workmen belonging to the Unions affiliated to it. The petitioner No. 2, Anwar Ali Rizvi, contends that by depriving the Sangh of this right the State has violated his right of association guaranteed under Article 19(c) of the Constitution.
(3.) In their supplementary affidavit the petitioners state that the Trade Union movement in India has been monopolised by different political parties and that there are very few trade unions independent of the control of these parties. The petitioner Sangh claims to be an independent Trade Union which is neither sponsored by nor affiliated to any political party. The petitioners further state that the Indian National Congress has organized a Trade Union known as the Indian National Trade Union Congress (to be referred to hereinafter as the INTUC.) Similarly., it is alleged, that the Praja Socialist Party has also organized a Trade Union which is called the Hind Mazdoor Sabha. The Communist Party of India, it is stated, has also organized a Trade Union under the name of the Indian Trade Union Congress. The Socialist Party, it is alleged, has separated from the Praja Socialist Party, but is still supporting the Hind Mazdoor Sabha.;