1953 (11) TMI 17 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Conviction under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act
- Validity of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
- Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(a) and (c) and 14 of the Constitution

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved three appellants who were office bearers of a textile workers' union in Bombay. The High Court confirmed their convictions under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act but reduced their sentences. The appellants were convicted for instigating a strike while an appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention was that the conviction was illegal due to the absence of a valid appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the court held that the mere pendency of an appeal, regardless of its validity, was sufficient under the law. The court emphasized that the legislature intended to maintain industrial peace during appeal proceedings to prevent parties from disturbing peace based on their own assessment of appeal competency.

Regarding the alleged infringement of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(a) and (c) and 14 of the Constitution, the appellants argued that the Act favored unions with a minimum membership percentage. The court disagreed, stating that the Act did not restrict freedom of speech or association. It required a minimum membership percentage for a union to be recognized as a "representative union" to represent the workers' interests effectively. The court found the classification based on membership percentage reasonable and open for other unions to fulfill the criteria for representation. The appellants' challenge of the Act's validity while relying on its provisions was deemed unreasonable and not in line with principles.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, dismissing their appeal. The judgment affirmed the legality of the convictions under section 27 of the Act and rejected the arguments related to the validity of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the alleged infringement of fundamental rights.