{"id":29987,"date":"1995-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995"},"modified":"2017-04-13T18:14:06","modified_gmt":"2017-04-13T12:44:06","slug":"shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","title":{"rendered":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1137, \t\t 1995 SCC (3)\t 78<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRAMIK UTTARSH SABHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 1137\t\t  1995 SCC  (3)\t 78\n JT 1995 (2)   284\t  1995 SCALE  (1)533\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
1.   Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
2    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The question for consideration in this appeal is : does
\na representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations
\nAct,  1946 (BIR Act) have the exclusive right  to  represent
\nthe  employees\tof  the\t concerned  industry  in  complaints
\nrelating  to unfair labour practices under  the\t Maharashtra
\nRecognition of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair  Labour
\nPractices  Act,\t 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act)\t other\tthan-  those
\nspecified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV
\n296<\/span>
\nthereof?\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  question  arises  in an appeal  by  special  leave
\nagainst\t the judgment and order of the High Court at  Bombay
\ndismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  first respondent is a public limited company\twith
\nan industrial establishment   at  Bombay.  It is covered  by
\nthe provisions of the B.I.R. Act.  The second respondent  is
\na trade union recognised as the representative union for the
\nconcerned industry under the provisions of the BIR Act.\t The
\nappellant  is a trade union registered under the  provisions
\nof the Trade Unions Act, 1926.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  first\t respondent  filed a  complaint\t before\t the
\nIndustrial  Court  alleging  the  unfair  labour   practices
\nmentioned  in  items 5 and 6 of Schedule III of the  MRTU  &
\nPULP  Act.   Item  5 of Schedule III states that  it  is  an
\nunfair\tlabour\tpractice on the part of a  trade  union\t “to
\nstage, encourage or instigate such forms of coercive actions
\nas  willful ‘go slow’, squatting on the work premises  after
\nworking\t hours\tor  gherao’ of any of  the  members  of\t the
\nmanagerial  or other staff”.  Item 6 of Schedule III  states
\nthat it is an unfair labour practice on the part of a  trade
\nunion  “to  stage demonstrations at the\t residences  of\t the
\nemployers or the managerial staff members”.  The  Industrial
\ncourt made an ad-interim order restraining the commission of
\nthe unfair labour practices.  The ad-interim order was\tmade
\nabsolute after the second respondent had been heard.  It  is
\nthe  appellant’s  case that the first  respondent  told\t the
\nIndustrial  Court  that it had no objection to\t-such  order
\nbeing passed, and that this was done because the members  of
\nthe  first  respondent were deserting it in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant.   The-  appellant moved  an\tapplication  seeking
\nimpleadment in the complaint proceedings on the ground\tthat
\nemployees of the first respondent had sought its  membership
\nand  that the complaint had been filed by the first  respon-
\ndent   in  collusion  with  the\t second\t  respondent.\t The
\napplication was opposed by the first and second respondents.
\nThe Industrial Court rejected the application. the appellant
\nfiled  a  writ\tpetition impugning  the\t Industrial  Court’s
\norder.\tThe High Court held that the only ground for  moving
\nthe  impleadment application was that several  employees  of
\nthe  first respondent had approached the appellant with\t the
\nintention  of  becoming its members and that  there  was  no
\nmaterial to support this ground.  Upon consideration of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe BIR and the MRTU & PUIL Acts,  the\tHigh
\nCourt\tconcluded  that\t the  second  respondent,   as\t the
\nrepresentative union, had the sole privilege of representing
\nemployees in the industry of the first respondent.  The writ
\npetition was, accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.It is advantageous to consider at the outset the  relevant
\nprovisions of the B.I.R. and the MRTU & PULP Acts.\n<\/p>\n
8.The  BIR  Act, which is the earlier statute,\twas  enacted
\nbecause\t “it was expedient to provide for the regulation  of
\nthe relations of employers and employees in certain  matters
\nto consolidate and amend the law relating to the  settlement
\nof  industrial\tdisputes and to provide\t for  certain  other
\npurposes”.   Section 3(2) defines “approved union” to  be  a
\nunion  on  the approved list.  Section 3(14)  states,  inter
\nalia, that an ’employer’ includes an association or a  group
\nof employers.  Section 3(28) defines “primary union” to mean
\na
\n287<\/span>
\nunion registered as a primary union under the Act.   Section
\n3(29)  defines “qualified union” to mean a union  registered
\nas  a qualified union under the Act.  Section 3(30)  defines
\n“registered union” to mean a union registered under the Act.
\nSection 3(33) defines “representative union” to mean a union
\nregistered as a representative union under the Act.  Section
\n3(38)  defines\t“union” to mean a trade union  of  employees
\nwhich  is  registered  under the  Trade\t Unions\t Act,  1926.
\nChapter\t HI  of the Act deals with registration\t of  unions.
\nSection\t 13 states that any union which has for\t the  period
\nspecified  therein  that percentage of the total  number  of
\nemployees  employed in any industry in any local area as  is
\nspecified   therein   may  apply  for  registration   as   a
\nrepresentative\tunion for such industry in such local  area.
\nSection 14 empowers the Registrar to registrar a union which
\nhas  made  an  application  under section  13  and  issue  a
\ncertificate in that behalf Section 15 empowers the Registrar
\nto cancel the registration of a union on the grounds  stated
\ntherein.  Section 16 empowers the Registrar to register\t any
\nunion  in place of the existing registered union if  at\t any
\ntime any other union makes an application in this behalf and
\nmeets  the conditions therein stated.  Chapter V deals\twith
\nthe   representatives\tof  employers  and   employees\t and
\nappearance  on their behalf Section 27A therein states\tthat
\nexcept\tas  provided in section 32, 33 and 33A\tno  employee
\nshould be allowed to appear or act in any. proceeding  under
\nthe  Act  except through the  representative  of  employees.
\nSection 30 sets out who the representative of employees\t is.
\nIt  states  the order of preference in this behalf  and\t the
\nmost preferred category is “a representative union for\tsuch
\nindustry”.   Section 32 states that the Industrial court  or
\nother  tribunal\t may,  for the ends of\tjustice,  permit  an
\nindividual to appear before it.\t Its proviso reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  subject to the  provisions  of
\n\t      section  33A,  no such  individual   shall  be
\n\t      permitted\t to appear in any proceedings  (not.
\n\t      being  a\tproceeding court or  the  Industrial
\n\t      legality or propriety of an order of dismissal
\n\t      discharge removal, retrenchment termination of
\n\t      service or suspension of an employee is  under
\n\t      consideration)  in   which  a   Representative
\n\t      Union  has appeared as the representative\t  of
\n\t      employer.\t Section 33 states that an  employee
\n\t      or a representative union shall be entitled to
\n\t      appear, inter alia, in all proceedings  before
\n\t      the  Industrial Court Section 33A\t relates  to
\n\t      proceedings  where  the  dispute\tis   between
\n\t      employees inter se.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   The  MRTU\t& PULP Act was enacted “to provide  for\t the
\nrecognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bar-
\ngaining\t for certain undertaking to state their rights,\t and
\nobligations;  to  confer  certain  powers  on\tunrecognised
\nunions;\t to provide for declaring certain strikes and  lock-
\nouts as illegal strikes and lock-outs; to define and provide
\nfor  the prevention of certain unfair labour  practices;  to
\nconstitute  courts (as independent machinery)  for  carrying
\nout  the purposes of according recognition to  trade  unions
\nand   for  enforcing  the  provisions  relating\t to   unfair
\npractices;  and\t to provide for matters connected  with\t the
\npurposes  aforesaid”.  Section 3 is the definition  section.
\nSub-section  (1) states that the “Bombay Act” means the\t BIR
\nAct  and sub-section (2) says that the “Central\t Act”  means
\nthe  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  “‘Employee” is  defined
\nby  subsection\t(5) to mean, in relation to an\tindustry  to
\nwhich the BIR Act applies, an employee as defined in section
\n3(13)
\n288<\/span>
\nthereof\t Similarly,  an\t “employer” and\t an  “industry”\t are
\ndefined\t by  sub-sections  (6)\tand  (7)  respectively,\t  in
\nrelation  to an industry to which the BIR Act applies,\twith
\nreference  to  the  meanings  of  these\t words\ttherein.   A
\n“recognised union” is defined by sub-section (13) to mean  a
\nunion  which  has been issued a certificate  of\t recognition
\nunder  Chapter\tIII  of the Act.   Subsection  (16)  defines
\n“unfair\t labour practices” to mean those defined in  section\n<\/p>\n
26. Sub-section 17 says that “union” means a trade union  of
\nemployees registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.\tSub-
\nsection\t (18) states that words and expressions used in\t the
\nAct  and  not defined therein but defined in  the  BIR\tAct,
\nshall,\tin  relation  to an industry to which  the  BIR\t Act
\napplies, have the meanings assigned to them by the BIR\tAct.
\nChapter III deals with the recognition of unions and section
\n10(2)  therein\tstates that the provisions  of\tthe  Chapter
\nshall not apply to undertakings and industries to which\t the
\nprovisions of the BIR Act apply.  Chapter IV deals with\t the
\nobligations  and rights of recognised unions,  other  unions
\nand  certain employees.\t Section 20 sets out the  rights  of
\nrecognised unions.  These include the right to collect\tsums
\npayable\t by  members to it on the premises where  wages\t are
\npaid  and  to hold discussions with the\t employees  and\t the
\nemployer.   It also states that where there is a  recognised
\nunion  for any undertaking, no employee shall be allowed  to
\nappear\tor  act\t or  be allowed to  be\trepresented  in\t any
\nproceedings  under the Industrial Disputes Act, not being  a
\nproceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of
\ndismissal,  discharge  or the like is  under  consideration,
\nexcept\tthrough the recognised union, and the  decision\t ar-
\nrived  at or order made in such proceeding shall be  binding
\non all the employees in\t such undertaking and the provisions
\nof  the Industrial Disputes Act shall stand amended in\tthis
\nbehalf, as specified in Schedule 1 to the said Act.  Section
\n21  states that no employee in an undertaking to  which\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Industrial Disputes Act apply  shall  be
\nallowed to appear or act or be represented in any proceeding
\nrelating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and
\n6  of  Schedule\t IV except  through  the  recognised  union.
\nSchedule  IV deals with general unfair labour  practices  on
\nthe  part  of  employers.  Item 2  thereof  deals  with\t the
\nabolition  of  work  of\t a  regular  nature  being  done  by
\nemployees  and the giving of such work to contractors  as  a
\nmeasure\t of  breaking  a  strike.. Item\t 6  deals  with\t the
\nemployment of employees as ‘badlis’, casuals or\t temporaries
\nand  to continue them as such for years with the  object  of
\ndepriving them of the status and privileges of permanent em-
\nployees.   Section  22 sets out the rights  of\tunrecognised
\nunions and gives them the right to meet and discuss with  an
\nemployer the grievance of any individual member relating  to
\nhis  discharge,\t removal  and the like.\t  It  also  entitles
\nunrecognised  unions  to appear on behalf of  their  members
\nemployed in the undertaking in any domestic or\tdepartmental
\ninquiry.  Unfair labour practices are dealt with by  Chapter
\nIV and section 26 defines them to mean the practices  listed
\nin  Schedules II, III and IV, Schedule 11 deals with  unfair
\nlabour\tpractices  on the part of  employers,  Schedule\t III
\ndeals  with  unfair labour practices on the  part  of  trade
\nunions\tand  Schedule IV deals with  general  unfair  labour
\npractices  on  the  part of employers.\t Section  27  debars
\nemployers, unions and employees from engaging in any  unfair
\nlabour\tpractice.   Section 28 sets out\t the  procedure\t for
\ndealing with complaints relating to unfair
\n289<\/span>
\nlabour\tpractices.   The order of the court thereon  is,  by
\nreason of section 29, binding on, inter alia, all parties to
\nthe  complaint\tand  those summoned to appear  be  fore\t the
\ncourt.\t Where\tthe party to the complaint  or\tsummoned  to
\nappear\tbefore\tthe  court is  composed\t of  employees,\t all
\npersons\t who on the date of the complaint were\temployed  in
\nthe  undertaking  to  which the complaint  relates  and\t all
\npersons subsequently employed therein are bound by the order
\nof the court.\n<\/p>\n
10.Four judgments of this court may now be noted.  In  Girja
\nShankar\t Kashi\tRam v. The Gujarat Spinning  &\tWeaving\t Co.
\nLtd.,<\/a> 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 890, it was held that ‘Section\t 27A
\nof the B.I.R. Act provides that no employee shall be allowed
\nto  appear  or act in any proceeding under  the\t Act  except
\nthrough the representative of employees, the only  exception
\nbeing  the  provisions of sections 32  and  33.\t  Therefore,
\nsection 27A completely bars the appearance of an employee or
\nany  one  oh  his  behalf in any  proceeding  after  it\t has
\ncommenced  except through the representative  of  employees.
\nIn  Santuram  Khudai v. Kimatrai Printers &  Processors\t (P)
\nLtd. & Ors.,<\/a> 1978 (2) SCR 387, this view was reaffirmed.  It
\nwas  held that neither the appellant in that matter nor\t his
\nco-employees  had  any\tlocus standi to\t appear\t or  act  in
\nproceeding   initiated\t by  the  employer  in\t which\t the
\nrepresentative\tunion had the right to appear and  act,\t and
\ndid  appear and act.  The new union to which  the  appellant
\nand some co-employees belonged had no right to appear or act
\non  their  behalf in these proceedings as it  had  not\tbeen
\nregistered  and\t recognised as the representative  union  of
\nemployees.  In Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union, Bombay and Anr.
\nv.   Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd.<\/a> 7nd ors., 1985 (2) SCR\t492.
\nThe judgments aforementioned were relied upon.\tIt was\theld
\nthat while interpreting section 20(2)(b) of the M.R.T. U.  &
\nP.U.L.P. act it had to be remembered that a workman who\t had
\nan  individual dispute with his employer arising out of\t his
\ndismissal,  discharge  or  the\tlike  would  not  suffer   a
\ndisadvantage  if  the recognised union did not\tespouse\t his
\ncause  for he would be able to pursue his remedy  under\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act.  Once this was assured, it had\t not
\nbe seen whether the status to represent workmen conferred on
\na recognised union to the exclusion of an individual workman
\nwho  was not a member of the recognised union would deny  to
\nhim  a\tfundamental  freedom.  Conferring the  status  of  a
\nrecognised union, it was held, on a union satisfying certain
\nprerequisites, which another union was not in a position  to
\nsatisfy, did not deny the right to form an association.\t The
\nlegislature  had  made\ta  clear  distinction  between\t the
\nindividual  grievance of a workman and a  dispute  affecting
\nall  or a large number of workmen.  An\tun-recognised  union
\nenjoyed\t the  statutory\t right\tto  meet  and  discuss\t the
\ngrievance  of an individual workman with his  employer.\t  It
\nalso  enjoyed the statutory right to appear and\t participate
\nin domestic or departmental inquiry in which its member\t was
\ninvolved.    This  was\tstatutory  recognition\tof  an\t un-
\nrecognised union.  Its exclusion was partial and the embargo
\nplaced upon it barring it from representing a workman was in
\nthe larger interest of the industry, the public interest and
\nthe  national interest. in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals\tLtd.
\nv.  Ram Naresh Tripathi,<\/a> (1993) 2 SCC 115, the question\t was
\nwhether\t a delinquent was entitled to be  represented by  an
\noffice\tbearer of another  trade union who was not a  member
\nof either the recognised union or an un-\n<\/p>\n
290<\/span><\/p>\n
recognised union functioning within the undertaking in which
\nthe  delinquent was employed.  This court held that the\t Act
\nwas   enacted\tto  provide  for   facilitating\t  collective
\nbargaining  for\t certain  undertakings;\t to  confer  certain
\npowers\ton un-recognised unions; to define and\tprovide\t for
\nthe  prevention of certain unfair labour practices;  and  to
\nconstitute courts for carrying out the purpose of  according
\nrecognition to trade unions and for enforcing the provisions
\nrelating to unfair labour practices.  It was made applicable
\nto industries to which the B.I.R. Act applied.\tIt was clear
\nfrom the scheme of the Act that, with a view to facilitating
\ncollective  bargaining in certain undertakings, the  concept
\nof  recognition of unions was introduced and  certain  obli-
\ngations\t and  rights  came to be imposed  and  conferred  on
\nrecognised unions.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Ms.  Jaisingh,  learned  counsel  for  the\t  appellant,
\nsubmitted that the B.I.R. Act and the M.R.T.U. and  P.U.L.P.
\nAct  operated in different fields.  The former did not\tdeal
\nwith the subject of unfair labour practices, which was dealt
\nwith  by the latter.  Since the object of the latter was  to
\nprevent unfair labour practices, it allowed access to courts
\nto  any union, recognised, representative or  otherwise,  to
\nany employee and even to a labour officer to ensure that  an
\nunfair\t labour\t practice  was\tprevented.   Since  an\t un-
\nrecognised  union could file a complaint, there was  nothing
\nincongruous  about it being heard as a respondent.   Section
\n21 was emphasised, and it was submitted that exclusivity was
\nconferred only in regard to items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV  of
\nthe  M.R.T.U.  and P.U.L.P. Act and an\tun-recognised  union
\ncould  appear in complaints in respect of all  other  unfair
\nlabour\tpractices’.   Having  regard to\t the  provisions  of
\nsection\t 29  of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act,\twhereby\t any
\norder  passed  would  be binding on the\t appellant  and\t its
\nmembers,  they\thad a right to be heard\t by  the  Industrial
\nCourt before any order could be made against them.\n<\/p>\n
12.Mr. A.H. Desai, learned counsel for the first respondent,
\nsubmitted  that\t the  right to\ta  representative  union  to
\nrepresent  the employees in an industry to which the  B.I.R.
\nAct applied remained unfettered and did not change by reason
\nof the fact that the proceedings had been adopted under\t the
\nM.R.T.U.  and P.U.L.P. act.  Learned counsel for the  second
\nrespondent  adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of\t the
\nfirst respondent.\n<\/p>\n
13.The\t M.R.T.U.  and\tP.U.L.P.  act  takes  note  of\t the
\nprovisions  of the B.I.R. Act.\tMany of its definitions\t are
\nstated to be those contained in the B.I.R. Act Chapter\tIII,
\nwhich  deals  with  the recognition of\tunions,\t states,  in
\nsection\t  10(2),  that\tits  provisions\t do  not  apply\t  to
\nundertakings  in industries to which the provisions  of\t the
\nB.I.R. Act apply.  The B.I.R. Act was enacted to provide for
\nthe regulation of the relation of employers and employees in
\ncertain\t matters  and to consolidate and amend\tthe  law  in
\nrelation  to  the settlement of\t industrial  disputes.\t The
\nM.R.T.U.  and  P.U.L.P. Act was enacted to provide  for\t the
\nrecognition  of\t trade unions  for  facilitating  collective
\nbargaining  for certain undertakings; to state their  rights
\nand  obligations; to confer certain powers  on\tunrecognised
\nunions;\t and  to define and provide for\t the  prevention  of
\nunfair\tlabour practices; and to constitute courts  in\tthis
\nbehalf It cannot, therefore, be said that the B.I.R. Act and
\nM.R.T.U.  and  P.U.L.P.\t Act operate  in  different  fields.
\nThere is communality in their objects and their pro-\n<\/p>\n
291<\/span><\/p>\n
visions. the obvious intent of the legislature which enacted
\nthem was that they should operate in tandene and  complement
\neach other in respect of industries to which the B.I.R.\t Act
\nhad  been  made applicable.  The two statutes must  be\tread
\ntogether.\n<\/p>\n
14.Section  21 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, upon  which
\nemphasis  was laid on behalf of the appellants, states\tthat
\nno employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act applies shall be allowed to  appear
\nor  act\t or be allowed to be represented in  any  proceeding
\nrelating to the unfair labour practices specified in items 2
\nand  6 of Schedule IV except through the  recognised  union.
\nIt  is important to note that the reference is to  employees
\nin  an undertaking to which the Industrial Disputes Act\t ap-
\nplies  and not to employees in an undertaking to  which\t the
\nB.I.R.\tAct applies.  Apart. therefrom, the section  permits
\nan  employee, not an union other than the recognised  union,
\nto  so\tappear.\t  The  provisions  of  section\t21  do\tnot,
\ntherefore, lead to the conclusion that an union other than a
\nrepresentative\tunion can appear in proceedings relating  to
\nall  unfair labour practices other than those  specified  in
\nitems 2 and 6 of Schedule IV.\n<\/p>\n
15.  It is true that an order of the Industrial\t  Court\t  in
\nthe concerned proceedings would\t   bind all employees of the
\nfirst  respondent even though there may be some\t among\tthem
\nwho  owe allegiance not to the representative union  but  to
\nthe appellant. The objective of the provisions of the B.I.R.
\nAct  and the M.R.T.U.  and P.U.L.P.  Act, read together\t and
\nthe embargo placed upon representation by anyone other\tthan
\nthe  representative of the employees, who for the most\tpart
\nis  the\t representative union, except in matters  pertaining
\nto  an\tindividual  dispute  between  an  employee  and\t the
\nemployer,  is  to  facilitate  collective  bargaining.\t The
\nrationale is that it is in the interest of industrial  peace
\nand  in the public and national interest that  the  employer
\nshould have to deal, in matters which concern all or most of
\nits employees, only with a union which is representative  of
\nthem.\tIt may be that a union which was  representative  of
\nthe  employees\tmay  have in the course of  time  lost\tthat
\nrepresentative\tcharacter,  it\tis  then  open,\t under\t the
\nprovisions  of the B.I.R. Act, for a rival union to seek  to
\nreplace it.\n<\/p>\n
16.  For the reasons aforesaid, the High Court\t  was  right
\nin the view that it took.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The appeal is dismissed.  There shall   be no order  as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
294<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1137, 1995 SCC (3) 78 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: SHRAMIK UTTARSH SABHA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1995 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3457,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\",\"name\":\"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995","datePublished":"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995"},"wordCount":3457,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995","name":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-13T12:44:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shramik-uttarsh-sabha-vs-raymond-woolen-mills-ltd-ors-on-7-february-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29987\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}