MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHAversusBENNET COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

    1008

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

                             MAY 6, 1986

B             [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]

          Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Preven-
    tion of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, sections 3( ii), 1i-t·
    and 19, scope of construction of labour legislation - Court
    should adopt a conmonsense construction and where two con-
c   structions 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
D   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
E   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
F   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
G   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.    ~

H        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

                                                                        A
     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     B
     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    c
  , 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    D
      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   E
      and subsequent written objections it did not raise any such
      objection before the Investigating Officer and rest content by
      putting one question to all the workmen as agreed upon between

I
~
      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
                                                                        F
      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.
                                                                        G
      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
                                                                        H
     1010                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS    [19861 2 s.c.R.

A
    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.          ~

            Allowing the appeal, the Court,
c
          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]

D         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
E   works out to Rs.2 per month which is obviously more than fiftyl-
    paise 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~ ,
F   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]
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
                MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN     [MISRA, J.]   1011

                                                                                A
           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]                             B

                  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
l.          the parties having entered into an agreement to put only one

l           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;       c
          ~.1019 F-G]

          ~           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   Civil Appeal No. 4519 of
              1985.

                    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


-r
              for the Respondents.

                      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     '4            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      G
            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·
    1012                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS      (19861 2 s.c.R.
A
    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
B   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.
c
          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
D   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~
E   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.
F   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
G   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
H   purpose of determining the membership of the rival unions and
               MUMBAI MAZIJOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN   [MISRA, J,)   1013

                                                                              A
         +   by its order dated September 11, 1981 appointed an
             Investigating Officer. The order passed by the Industrial
.. \'\       Court is as under :

                       "In this matter the applicant union has produced
                       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     E
           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       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     G
           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     H
    1014                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [19861 2 s.c.R.

A
    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
B   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
c   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
D              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 }
E   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         i       \"' .
F   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.

         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
H
          MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN   [MISRA, J.]    1015

                                                                          A
         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     B
         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        c
    >    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,        D
          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,    E
        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
                                                                          F
      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
                                                                          G
      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
                                                                          H
     1016                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986] 2 S.C.R.

A
     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)
B
     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      t
     period of more than three calendar months during the period of     ~
c    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
                                                                       1
1l
     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
     the rules or the Constitution of a union seeking recognition
     under this Act shall provide for the following matters and        ~
E
     the provision thereof shall be duly observed by the union,
     namely,-

                (i) the membership subscription shall be not less
                than fifty paise per month;
F
                (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
G
               the purpose; and

                (iv) an Auditor appointed by the State Government          ..
                may audit its account at least once in each
                financial year.
H
      MUMBAI MAZOOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN   [MISRA, J.]    1017

                                                                      A
        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       B
   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'
              • • • • • • sha11 be entitled to become an ordinary
              member of the Sabha on payment of an admission fee      c
              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          D
              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   F
    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       G
    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.

                                                                      H
    1018                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
         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
B
    (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 :
c
               Provided that, no person shall at any time be
               deemed to be a member, if his subscription is
               arrears for a period of more than three calendai
                                                                in4
               months during the period of six months immediatelyi
               preceding    such   time,   and    the   expression
D
               "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
E
               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<'
F
    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
G
    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
H
    beyond the month in respect of which it becomes due.
           MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v, BENNET COLEMAN   [MISRA, J. ]   1019

                                                                           A
         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 crux of the problem is whether the                  B
         appellant-union seeking recognition under this Act provides
         for th~ matters enWD!'rated in the various dauses of section
         19.

              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
                                                                           c
    f-   Rs.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       D
         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.
                                                                           F
              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.
                                                                           G
              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      H
    1020                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986) 2 s.c.R.
A
    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
B   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
c   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
D   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
E   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
F   for exempting any worker or workers from payment of admission i        ¥
    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
                                                                     +
G   affect the membership of the workmen in face of the provisions
    of exempting the workmen from the payment of membership fee.

         The Industrial Court, in our opinion, has committed a
    manifest error in assuming that there was no provision in the     r-
    Constitution for exempting the admission fee. The Industrial
H   Court has overlooked the provisions of rule 3 of the
    Constitution of the Union.
          MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA v. BENNET COLEMAN   [MISRA, J,]    1021
                                                                         A
            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.                B




     ~.R.                                              Appeal allowed.
,/


"
     ~
      t




-
.