# MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENllKf OOLEMAN & <nft>ANY L'.m. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1008
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4519 of 1985
- **Bench:** V. Balakrishna Eradi, R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mumbai-mazdoor-sabha-v-benllkf-ooleman-nft-any-l-m-ors-9374
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions
and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, sections 3( ii), 1 i-t·
and 19, scope of construction of labour legislation - Court
should adopt a conmonsense construction and where
two constructions are possible, the one which is more rational should
be accepted.
Estoppel
by
conduct
Respondent
giving
up
the
objections before the Investigation Officer appointed by thei
Tribunal would be estopped from raising the same before the
Tribunal later - New case cannot be carved out by the Tribunal
either.
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act, 1971 envisages
that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six
calendar months inmediately preceding the calendar month in"-
which it so applies under this section a membership of not
less than thirty percent of the total number of employees
employed in any undertaking may apply in the prescribed form
to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised
union of such undertaking. Section 3(ii) of the Act defines i
the term "member" Section 19 of the Act obligates that the
rules of the Constitution of a union seeking recognition under
the Act shall provide for the following matters and the+·
provision thereof shall be duly observed by the Union, namely,
(i) the membership subscription shall be not less than fifty
paise per month; (ii) the Executive Committee shall meet at
intervals of not more than three months; (iii) all resolutions
passed, whether by the Executive Committee or the General Body
of the union, shall be recorded in a Minute Book kept for the
purpose; and (iv) an Auditor appointed by the State Government
may audit its account at least once in each financial year.
~
The appellant union moved an application before the
Industrial Court under section 11 of the Act for recognition
•
MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
1009
of its union as a recognised union in respect of the first
+respondent company Bennet, Coleman & Company Ltd. and filed
its subscription Receipt Books, Membership Register, Bank Pass
Book, Ledger and Minute Book Copy of its Constitution etc. to
prove that the persona claimed by the appellant as its members
(totalling 67 per cent of the total working force) are in fact
its members. In the said application, the appellant impleaded
respondent No. 2, the Times of India and Allied Publications
Employees Union operating in the Respondent No.l c0111pany and
·fiaving some membership amongst the workmen employed therein.
The second respondent filed written objections. The Industrial
Court felt that it would be impossible for it to receive
evidence of approximately lSOO workmen and therefore appointed
, an Investigating Officer uru!er section 9 of the Act for the
Jopurpose of determining the membership of the rival unions. In
T the
meeting _held
before
the
Investigating Officer on
tt6.10.1981, a unanimous decision was taken by all the parties
including the representaties of the second Respondent union
wherein it was expressly agreed that only one question will be
put to all workmen (i.e.) "In the year 1980 you were a member
of which union". It was further agreed upon that in case the
workman did not know the name of the union, they would be
asked the name of the union leader or of the Committee Member
of the
Union to which they belong. Although the second
,.ijlespondent had taken a number of pleas both in its preliminary
and subsequent written objections it did not raise any such
objection before the Investigating Officer and rest content by
I
putting one question to all the workmen as agreed upon between
the parties. The respondent union either gave up other
~ objections or waived the same. After taking the evidence, the
" hnvestigating
Officer
accepted
the
claim
of
the
appellant-union and submitted his report to the Industrial
l_Court on March 12, 1982.
The Industrial Court instead of
·yaccepting the report of the Investigating Officer permitted
'the

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1008
MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA
v.
BENllKf OOLEMAN & <nft>ANY L'.m. & ORS.
MAY 6, 1986
[V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions
and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, sections 3( ii), 1 i-t·
and 19, scope of construction of labour legislation - Court
should adopt a conmonsense construction and where
two constructions are possible, the one which is more rational should
be accepted.
Estoppel
by
conduct
Respondent
giving
up
the
objections before the Investigation Officer appointed by thei
Tribunal would be estopped from raising the same before the
Tribunal later - New case cannot be carved out by the Tribunal
either.
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act, 1971 envisages
that any Union which has for the whole of the period of six
calendar months inmediately preceding the calendar month in"-
which it so applies under this section a membership of not
less than thirty percent of the total number of employees
employed in any undertaking may apply in the prescribed form
to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised
union of such undertaking. Section 3(ii) of the Act defines i
the term "member" Section 19 of the Act obligates that the
rules of the Constitution of a union seeking recognition under
the Act shall provide for the following matters and the+·
provision thereof shall be duly observed by the Union, namely,
(i) the membership subscription shall be not less than fifty
paise per month; (ii) the Executive Committee shall meet at
intervals of not more than three months; (iii) all resolutions
passed, whether by the Executive Committee or the General Body
of the union, shall be recorded in a Minute Book kept for the
purpose; and (iv) an Auditor appointed by the State Government
may audit its account at least once in each financial year.
~
The appellant union moved an application before the
Industrial Court under section 11 of the Act for recognition
•
MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
1009
of its union as a recognised union in respect of the first
+respondent company Bennet, Coleman & Company Ltd. and filed
its subscription Receipt Books, Membership Register, Bank Pass
Book, Ledger and Minute Book Copy of its Constitution etc. to
prove that the persona claimed by the appellant as its members
(totalling 67 per cent of the total working force) are in fact
its members. In the said application, the appellant impleaded
respondent No. 2, the Times of India and Allied Publications
Employees Union operating in the Respondent No.l c0111pany and
·fiaving some membership amongst the workmen employed therein.
The second respondent filed written objections. The Industrial
Court felt that it would be impossible for it to receive
evidence of approximately lSOO workmen and therefore appointed
, an Investigating Officer uru!er section 9 of the Act for the
Jopurpose of determining the membership of the rival unions. In
T the
meeting _held
before
the
Investigating Officer on
tt6.10.1981, a unanimous decision was taken by all the parties
including the representaties of the second Respondent union
wherein it was expressly agreed that only one question will be
put to all workmen (i.e.) "In the year 1980 you were a member
of which union". It was further agreed upon that in case the
workman did not know the name of the union, they would be
asked the name of the union leader or of the Committee Member
of the
Union to which they belong. Although the second
,.ijlespondent had taken a number of pleas both in its preliminary
and subsequent written objections it did not raise any such
objection before the Investigating Officer and rest content by
I
putting one question to all the workmen as agreed upon between
the parties. The respondent union either gave up other
~ objections or waived the same. After taking the evidence, the
" hnvestigating
Officer
accepted
the
claim
of
the
appellant-union and submitted his report to the Industrial
l_Court on March 12, 1982.
The Industrial Court instead of
·yaccepting the report of the Investigating Officer permitted
'the respondent union to raise objections to the grant of the
application. The appellant union was refused permission to
produce material evidence to meet the objections raised.
However, the Industrial Court overruled most of the objections
raised, but accepting the three objections, namely, (1) that
.the Constitution of the appellant union is at variance with
'\the requirement of clause (i) of section 19 inasDUch as the
requirement of section 19(1) is that the rules of the union
DUst provide that the membership subscription shall not be
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 2 s.c.R.
less than fifty paise per month. But the Constitution and the
rules of the appellant union does not satisfy this requirement*
of section 19(1). (2) that a fairly large llUllber of workers
alleged to be members of the appellant union were in arrears
of the subscription for a period of more than three calendar
months during the period of six months innediately preceding
B
such time; and (3) that some of the new members included as .1'<
the workers of the appellant union had not paid their {~
admission
fees,
dismissed
the
application
of
the 1·
appellant-union. Hence the appeal by special leave.
~
c
D
E
F
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HKLD: 1. The Court has to adopt a comw>nsense construe- I
tion of a labour statute and in any case where two construc-l
tions are possible, the one which is more rational should ~
accepted. [1019 C]
2.1 Rule 3 of the Constitution of the appellant union
substantially satisfies the requirement of clause (i) of
section 19 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention
of
Unfair
Labour
Practices
Act,
1971.
The
Constitution of the union provides for subscription of a sum
of Rs. 24 for twelve months or Rs. 12 for six months which
works out to Rs.2 per month which is obviously more than fiftylpaise per month required under clause (i) of section 19 of the
Act. [1017 E-F]
2.2 Section 19 does not talk of payment of subscription
but talks of only four requirements stated therein. Readi~ ,
section 3(11) as a whole, it is evident, that while defining
"member" it permits the time for payment of subscription to be
extended for a period of three months beyond the month inj
respect of which it becomes due. Therefore, the lUllP 'swt.,
payment of three months will satisfy the requirement of
section 3(11) of the Act. (1018 F-G]
2.3 The requirement of section 3(11) of the Act is only
about the payment of subscription and not about the admission
fee. If there is evidence to show that subscription has been
received from the workmen it pre-supposes
~t they were thel'-
valid melllbers as no subscription will be taken fros a workman
H
who is not a member of the union and that also leads to the
l.
l
-
MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J.]
1011
conclusion that the workmen were the valid Embers of the
+union according to the
rules of the union. In view of the
provision in Rule 3 of the Constitution itself exempting any
worker or workers from payment of admission fee of Re. l even
if admission fee had not been paid it cannot affect the
membership of the workman. (1020 D-E; F]
3. No new case which was not pleaded can be carved out
~by a Tribunsl, as has been made out in this case. Besides both
the parties having entered into an agreement to put only one
question to each worker,
the other objection having been
either given up or waived respondent No. 2 would be es topped
from raising objections before the Industrial Court. (1020 B;
~.1019 F-G]
~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 4519 of
1985.
A
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.1985 of the
D
Industrial Court at Maharashtra in Appln. (MRTU) No. 22 of
1980.
J.P. Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
P.R. Seetharaman (not present) and M.A. KrishnalOUrthy
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'4 r
R.. B. MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment and order of the Industrial
F
l Court dated February 8, 1985 arising out of an application
· 1 under section 11
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practlces Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
Section 11 of the Act envisages that any Union which has
for the whole of the period of six calendar months i111Dediately
preceding the calendar month in which
it so applies under
~ this section a membership of not less than thirty per cent of
the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may
apply in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being
registered as a recognised union of such undertaking. The
appellant-Union moved an application before the Industria·
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19861 2 s.c.R.
Court for recognition of its union as a recognised union in
respect of the first respondent, Bennet Coleman & Coq>any Ltd. i'"
In the said
applicat~on the appellant iq>leaded besides
respondent No. I, respondent No. 2, the Times
of
India and
Allied Publications Employees' Union operating in the !st
respondent Coq>any and having some membership aioongst the
workmen employed therein. The appellant alleged that its
membership for the relevant period of six months prior to the
date of application stood at the rate of 67 per cent of the.,.
total working force. The appellant annexed a list of the
workmen whom it claimed as its members and a copy of the
Constitution of the appellant-union.
The Second Respondent on or about the 15th of December, A
1980, filed certain preliminary objections to the application
of the appellant. The principal objection being that the1
appellant-union had instigated a strike deemed to be illegal·
under the Act and was
therefore debarred from obtaining
recognition. This objection was specifically overruled by the
Third Respondent, Industrial Court.
On 25th March, 1981, the second respondent filed its own
application under section II for being registered as a
recognised union in the said establishment and
claimed~
membership
of
46
per
cent
of
the
employees.
The
appellant-union filed its objections to the said application.
The Second Respondent also filed further written objections to
the original application filed by the appellant-union. Later
on,
the
Second Respondent withdrew its application for
recognition and, therefore, we are not concerned with the't
i.
application of the Second Respondent in the present case and
the appeal is confined only to the application filed by the J
appellant-union.
T
The appellant union filed before the Industrial Court
its Subscription Receipt Books, Membership Register, Bank Pass
Book, Ledger and Minute Book to prove that the persons claimed
by the appellant as its members are in fact its members. After
hearing both the parties, the Industrial Court felt that it
would
be
impossible
for
it
to
receive
evidence
of ,_
approximately 1500 workmen and therefore decided to appoint an
Investigating Officer under section 9 of the Act for the
purpose of determining the membership of the rival unions and
\'\
+
MUMBAI MAZIJOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J,)
1013
by
its
order
dated
Investigating Officer.
Court is as under :
September
11,
1981
appointed
an
The order passed by the Industrial
"In this matter the applicant union has produced
A
its documents and the non-applicant union although
B
has not produced any documentary evidence has
claimed a substantial membership of their union. In
view of the rival contentions, it is necessary that
the Investigating Officer holds an inquiry and
makes
a
report
as
to the correct claim of
membership
of
each
union
by
interrogating
individual
members
in
the
presence
of
one
C
representative of each union. Liberty is granted to
the non-applicant union to produce their documents
on or before the 21st September, 1981. However, if
the non-applicant union fails to produce the said
documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer may
proceed
with the inquiry as directed above and
D
submit his report by the end of this month."
Pursuant to the said order dated September 11, 1981, the
Investigating Officer called a meeting of the representatives
of the appellant and the First and Second Respondents on
October 16, 1981 to discuss and decide all the issues relating
to the aforesaid investigation as also the nature of questions
which should be asked to the workmen who would be appearing
before the Investigating Officer. It appears that in the
aforesaid meeting a unanimous decision was taken by all the
parties including the representatives of the Second Respondent
Union wherein it was expressly agreed that only one question
E
F
l will be put to all workmen, i.e., "In the year 1980 you were a
1 member of which Union?" It was further agreed between the
parties that in case the workmen did not know the name of the
union, they would be asked the name of the union leader or of
the Committee Member of the union to which they belong. It was
so agreed because all the parties realised that very often the
workmen do not know the precise name of the union to which
they belong and only associate themselves with the name of the
President of the Union or the office bearers thereof. The said
agreement between the parties was reduced to writing by the
Investigating Officer by his order dated October 16, 1981. The
agreement also indicated that the inquiry will be conducted in
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 2 s.c.R.
Marathi and also if required, either in Hindi or in English, +
as the case may be.
The Investigating Officer issued a letter to the First
Respondent Comi>any dated October 30, 1981 calling upon it to
publish a notice on its Notice Board informing the workmen of
the aforesaid investigation proceedings, together with the
list of the workmen to be irtterrogated on behalf of both the
unions. The .investigation, however, could not start on account +
of some dilatory tactics adopted by the Second Respondent
Union.
The
Investigating
Officer,
therefore,
iooved
the
Industrial Court on January 25, 1982 for further directions
and the Industrial Court gave the necessary directions in the
following terms :
).,
"Heard
both
Shri
Deo
and
Shri Bandekar.
The -1
Investigating
Officer
to
continue
his
investigation. After giving usual notice to all the
parties concerned, he should proceed with the work,
whether any of the parties appeared or not after
due service."
Pursuant
to the
aforesaid order,
the Investigating
Officer
issued
notice
dated
February
3,
1982
to
the }
appellant-union and the Second Respondent intimating that he
intends to start the investigation of membership on and from
February 8, 1982. Both the unions were, therefore, requested
to remain present during the course of the said investigation.
Although the Second Respondent had taken a number of
pleas
both
in its
preliminary
and
subsequent
written
objections, it did not raise any such objection before the l
Investigating Officer and rest content by putting one question 1"
to all the workmen as agreed upon between the parties before
the Investigating Officer. rne reapondent union either gave up
other objections or waived the same.
i
\"' .
'·
Out of 1478 members claimed by the appellant-union, 1311
members appeared before the Investigating Officer and 1309
submitted
their
statements
admitting
membership
of
the
appellant-union.
On the other hand, out of 1002 members
claimed by the respondent-union only 188 appeared before the -
MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J.]
1015
Investigating Officer. Out of 188 workmen, only 12 stated that
-+ they were members of the respondent-union in 1980. Even out of
those 12 members,
two workmen subsequently approached the
Investigating Officer and submitted in writing their revised
statements stating that they had made their statements that
they were members of the respondent-union on account of some
misunderstanding and they, therefore, desired to change their
statements. Further, out of the remaining 176 members
claimed
by the respondent-union, 172 stepped forward to say that they
-1- considered themselves as the members of the appellant-union
during the year 1980. The appellant-union·, however, disowned
those persons inasmuch as they had not specifically joined the
appellant-union like members specifically referred in its
application for recognition. In this situation, it can be
> safely inferred that 172 workmen though not members of the
appellant-union, had leaning and sympathy towards that union
t rather than with the respondent-union.
The
Investigating
Officer accepted
the
claim of
the appellant-union and
submitted his report to the Industrial Court on March 12,
1982.
In the normal course, the Industrial Court in the absence
of any other objection raised by the respondent-union before
the Investgating Officer should have accepted the conclusions
~ arrived at by the Investigating Officer. The Industrial Court,
however, permitted the respondent-union to raise objections
despite the fact that the respondent-union had given up or
waived other objections before.the Investigating Officer.
The appellant did not produce material evidence before
j
1 the Investigating Officer to meet the objections taken in the
written
objections
as
they
were
given
up
before
the
l Investigating Officer. The appellant in this situation sought
1 the permission of the Industrial Court to adduce evidence to
meet the objections sought to be raised before the Industrial
Court.
The
Court
however
refused
the
permission.
The
appellant, therefore, had no opt ion but to rely only on the
material already on the record.
The respondent-union raised a numbe-r of objections some
based on the written objections and some objections were taken
a fresh before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court
overruled most of the objections but accepted three objections
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
1l
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 S.C.R.
raised by the respondent-union. In the result, the Industrial
Court dismissed the application of the appellant-union
for
recognition. The three objections which
weighed
with the
Industrial Court are :
(1) that the Constitution of the
appellant-union is at variance with the requirement of clause
(i) of section 19 inasmuch as the requirement of section 19(1)
is that the rules of
the union !ll1St provide that the
membership subscription shall not be less than fifty paise per
month. But t;he Constitution and the rules of the appellant
union does not satisfy this requirement of section 19; (2)
that a fairly large ·number of workers alleged to be members of
the appellant union were in arrears of the subscription for a
period of more than three calendar months during the period of
six months immediate1y preceding such time; and (3) that some
of the new members included as the workers of the appellant
union had not paid their admission fees.
The appellant has now come by special leave to this Court
to challenge the order of the Industrial Court.
Before dealing with the questions raised in this appeal,
it would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant
provisions of the Act. Section 19 of the act obligates that
-+
~
1
the rules or the Constitution of a union seeking recognition
under this Act shall provide for
the following matters and
~
the provision thereof shall be duly observed by the union,
namely,-
(i) the membership subscription shall be not less
than fifty paise per month;
(ii)
the
Executive
Committee
shalt
meet
at
intervals of not more than three months;
(iii) all resolutions passed,
whether
by
the
Executive Committee or the General Body of the
union, shall be recorded in a Minute Book kept for
the purpose; and
(iv) an Auditor appointed by the State Government
may audit its account at least once in each
financial year.
t
~
..
MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J.]
1017
According to Section 19 of the Act, the rules of a union
~see~ing 'recognition under this Act shall provide for, inter
alia, that the membership subscription shall not be less than
fifty paise per l!k)nth. One of the questions for consideration
is whether there has been the comp Hance of clause ( i) of
section 19 of the Act. The relevant rule in the Constitution
of the appellant-union is rule 3. In so far as it is relevant
for the purpose of this case, it reads :
"Any worker aged l!k)re than 18 years, employed in
any unit of industries as mentioned in Schedule 'A'
• • • • • •
sha 11 be entitled to become an ordinary
member of the Sabha on payment of an admission fee
of Rupee one and annual subscription of Rs. 24 at
one time or at the rate of Rs. 12 for six l!k)nths ••
• • • • • • The President may exempt any worker or
workers from payment of admission fee of Rupee One
at any time. In case any member joins or forms a
rival union or joins or forms a rival union or
joins hands
with employer in any manner his
membership whether ordinary or life in the Sabha,
stands automatically terminated. Membership fee
paid shall not be refunded to the Member."
~
The only requirement of clause (i) of section 19 is that
the rule or the Constitution of the Union mJst provide that
the membership subscription shall not be less than fifty paise
per l!k)nth. The Constitution of the Union provides that a sum
of Rs. 24 for twelve l!k)nths or Rs. 12 for six months will be
the subscription of a member. This works out to Rs. 2 per
>I Yl!k)nth which is obviously more than Fifty paise per oonth. The
Industrial Court, however, took the view that the appellant
~~ught to have led evidence to show that its members understood
1the.Constitution to mean that payment of subscription was at
the rate of Rs.2 per month. The reasoning given by the
Industrial Court, in our opinion, is not at all tenable. Rule
3 of the Constitution of the Union undoubtedly provides for
subscription of Rs.2 per month which is in excess of fifty
paise as contemplated by clause (i) of section 19. Thus, in
our opinion, Rule 3 substantially satisfies the requirement of
iclause (i) of section 19.
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 s.c.R.
This leads us to the second ground which prevailed with
the Industrial Court, namely, whether the workers alleged to+-
be the members of the appellant-union were in arrears for a
period for more than three calendar months during the period
of six months immediately preceding such time. The lndustiral
Court relied on the definition of member as given in clause
(11) of section 3 of the Act, which reads thus :
"3(11) - "Member" means a person who is an ordinary
member of a union, and has paid a subscription to+-
the union of not l~ss than fifty paise per calendar
month :
Provided that, no person shall at any time be
deemed to be a member, if his subscription is in4
arrears for a period of more than three calendai
months during the period of six months immediatelyi
preceding
such
time,
and
the
expression
"membership" shall be construed, accordingly.
Explanation -
A subscription for a particular
calendar month shall, for the purpose of this
clause, be deemed to be in arrears, if such
subscription is not paid within three months after
the end of the calendar month in respect of which~
it is due;"
As a matter of fact, section 19 does not talk of payment
,..
of subscription but talks of only four requirements as
enumerated in section 19. The Industrial Court, however, was
I<'
of the view that the appellant union had to establish that thet
workmen claimed to be its members had paid the subscription as
required by section 3(11) of the Act and it is on these basisl
that
the Industrial Court
imported section 3(11) whilef
considering the requirements of section 19. It is on the
strength of the explanation added to clause (11) of section 3
that the Industrial Court held that subscription should have
been paid month by month.
Reading section 3(11) as a whole, it is evident that
while defining member it permits the time for payment of r
subscription to be extended for a period of three months
beyond
the month in respect of which it becomes due.
'
•
MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v, BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J. ]
1019
Therefore, the lump sum payment of three months will, in our
.+ opinion, satisfy the requirement of sectl.on 3(11) and the
Industrial Court has taken a. hypertechnical view of section
3(11) of the Act.
The
real
appellant-union
for th~ matters
19.
crux
of
the
problem
is
whether
the
seeking recognition under this Act provides
enWD!'rated in the various dauses of section
The Court has to adopt a commonsense construction and in
any case where two constructions are possible, the one which
is more rational should be accepted. Since th~ Constitution of
,
the appellant-union provides for an annual subscription of
fRs.24 at one time or Rs. 12 for every six months, the said
amounts are paid in relation to specific months and are meant
t to cover each of these months.
There is yet another aspect which cannot be lost sight
of. In the first written objection which was by way of
preliminary one, the plea taken was that the appellant-union
had not paid the subscription at all but in the second written
objection, the respondent-union had modified its earlier stand
and took up the stand that there was some discrepancy between
the amount collected under the head subscription and the
number of persons in respect of whom it was so collected. The
disparity, if any, was only in respect of members at serial
numbers 2, 3 and 4 of the list and that too, only of a
marginal amount having no real impact on the overall question
of payment of subscription.
Besides,
both
the parties having entered into an
agreement
to put only one question to each worker,
as
indicated earlier, the other objection had been either given
up or waived and respondent No.2 would be estopped from
raising those objections before the Industrial Court.
Indeed, the 'Industrial Court itself refused to accept the
respondents' challenge to the identity of the workmen on the
ground that the respondent-union had not raised this point
before the Investigating Officer. The Industrial Court also
refused to accept the allegation of the respondent-union that
the appellant had induced workmen to give a favourable reply
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986) 2 s.c.R.
on the ground that same had not been raised before the
Investigating Officer. We see no reason why it did not apply +
the same principle with regard to the other objections which
prevailed with it. The Industrial Court did not choose to rely
on the documents produced by the appellant-union regarding the
payment of subscription on the ground that there is nothing to
show that the amount shown therein had not been paid by the
appellant-union itself. The Industrial Court, in our opinion,
has carved out a new case which was not even pleaded in any of
the two written objections filed by the respondent-union.
-t
'.Olis leads us to the last ground about the non-payment of
the admission fee. No specific plea to that effect had been
taken in either of the two written objections. '.Ole objection
taken is that the admission fee net amount in the Cash Book of A
the appellant was not shown. The Industrial Court concluded
about the non-payment of the admission fee on the ground that
~
the
counterfoils of
the receipts showing collection of
admission fee had not been shown. The requirement of section
3(11) of the Act is only about the payment of subscription and
not about the admission fee. If there is evidence to show that
subscription
has
been
received
from
the
workmen
it
pre-supposes
that
they
were
the
valid
members
as
no
subscription will be taken from a workman who is not a member
of the union and that also leads to the conclusion that the
:>-
workmen were the valid members of the union according to the
rules of the Union.
Even assuming that admission fee of certain workmen had
not been paid, there is a provision in the Constitution itself
for exempting any worker or workers from payment of admission
fee of Re. 1 at any time as is evident from rule 3 of the
Constitution which has been quoted in the earlier part of
the
judgment.
Thus, even if admission fee had not been paid it cannot
affect the membership of the workmen in face of the provisions
of exempting the workmen from the payment of membership fee.
i
¥
+
The Industrial Court, in our opinion, has committed a
manifest error in assuming that there was no provision in the
rConstitution for exempting the admission fee. The Industrial
Court has
overlooked the provisions of rule
3 of the
Constitution of the Union.
MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN
[MISRA, J,]
1021
For the foregoing discussion, we find considerable force
--tn the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and the
appeal 1111st succeed. We accordingly allow the appeal and set
"
aside the order of the Industrial Court with the result that
the application for recognition filed by the appellant union
stands allowed. lbere will be no order as to costs.
~.R.
Appeal allowed.
,/
"
~
t
-
..
A
B