RAJA KULKARNI AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

Case Analysis

RAJA KULKARNI AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

April 21, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Raja Kulkarni and Others v. The State of Bombay, 1954 AIR 73, 1954 SCR 384, is a landmark constitutional judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India interpreting Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution in conjunction with provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The petitioners, leaders of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, challenged their conviction under Section 27 of the 1950 Act for instigating an illegal strike during the pendency of an appeal. They argued that the strike was lawful due to the incompetency of the appeal and that Section 27 violated their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court upheld their conviction and maintained that even an incompetent appeal pending under the law triggers the application of Section 27. Furthermore, it held that classifying unions as “representative” and “qualified” based on membership does not infringe upon fundamental rights. The decision affirms the principle that industrial peace is a priority and that procedural classification within labour law is reasonable and constitutionally valid.

Keywords: Industrial Relations, Illegal Strike, Article 19, Article 14, Trade Unions, Fundamental Rights

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Raja Kulkarni and Others v. The State of Bombay

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeals Nos. 87, 88, and 89 of 1951

iii) Judgement Date: 24th November, 1953

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Patanjali Sastri C.J., Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Ghulam Hasan

vii) Citation: 1954 AIR 73, 1954 SCR 384

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 19(1)(a), (c) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Sections 3(32), 12, 13 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Sections 24, 25, 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Labour Law, Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This judgment stems from an industrial dispute involving textile workers in Bombay. A significant segment of the textile workforce belonged to different unions, and the State’s framework for recognizing these unions based on representativeness led to this constitutional challenge. The appellants, who led a minority union—the Mill Mazdoor Sabha—were convicted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 for inciting an illegal strike. They questioned the validity of their conviction on the grounds of fundamental rights under Article 19 and Article 14, and the procedural legality of the appeal that was pending. Their case raised intricate issues of the scope of free speech, right to association, and the limits of legality during adjudication in the context of industrial law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Mill Mazdoor Sabha was one of three trade unions representing textile workers in Bombay. It had lesser membership than the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which was recognized as a representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, for having more than 15% of worker membership. On 9th December 1949, the representative union demanded a bonus, which was referred to the Industrial Court under Section 23 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal Act came into force on 20th May 1950. After an award was made and challenged by the Mill Owners Association, an appeal was filed, and the Tribunal passed interim directions.

Despite the pendency of this appeal, the appellants made public speeches on 14th, 15th, and 16th August urging workers to go on strike. Consequently, they were prosecuted under Section 27 for inciting an illegal strike, which is prohibited during an appeal under Sections 24 and 25. The Presidency Magistrate convicted them and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 each. The High Court reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment and waived the fine. The present appeal arose from this conviction.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the strike called during the pendency of the appeal was illegal under Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, even if the appeal was not competent or maintainable.

ii) Whether the classification of trade unions into “representative” and “qualified” under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, infringes Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act could not be invoked as there was no valid or competent appeal pending before the Tribunal. They argued that since the appeal was not maintainable, the prohibition under Section 24 did not apply.

ii) They also challenged Section 27 as violative of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 19(1)(c) (freedom to form associations), contending that the provision curtailed their right to express dissent and mobilize workers during the appeal.

iii) Further, they attacked the classification under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act which only gave “representative unions” exclusive rights based on a membership threshold. This, they claimed, was arbitrary and discriminatory, and hence violative of Article 14.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the statutory bar on strikes during the pendency of an appeal applies regardless of whether the appeal is later held to be incompetent or not.

ii) They argued that Section 27 applies as long as the appeal is formally pending. The Tribunal alone can decide whether the appeal is maintainable. Until such decision is made, parties must obey the legal bar.

iii) Regarding the classification of trade unions, they contended that the 15% threshold is a rational basis to determine representativeness. The classification promotes administrative efficiency and industrial harmony, and thus meets the test of reasonable classification under Article 14.

iv) They further argued that neither the right to form unions nor the right to free speech is taken away. Unions can still function, organize, and seek registration as representative unions if they meet the criteria.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950: Penalizes instigation of illegal strikes.

ii) Section 24 and Section 25: Prohibit strikes during the pendency of appeal and declare them illegal.

iii) Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c): Guarantee freedom of speech and right to form associations.

iv) Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.

v) Sections 12 and 13 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Provide classification and registration of unions.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that Section 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Act applies regardless of the competence of the appeal. A pending appeal under the Act, even if eventually dismissed, bars strikes until adjudication concludes. The Court adopted the reasoning from Nagendra Nath Dey and Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Dey (1931) 59 IA 283, holding that an appeal is pending until it is dismissed, regardless of its maintainability.

ii) The Court further held that the classification of trade unions as “representative” and “qualified” under Section 13 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act is reasonable and constitutionally valid. It upheld the view that no restriction is placed on the formation of unions or free speech. The classification serves a legitimate governmental interest in ensuring industrial peace.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court observed that permitting unions with less than 15% membership to participate in disputes would lead to fragmentation and chaos, undermining the effectiveness of collective bargaining.

ii) It also noted that permitting individuals to judge the legality of pending appeals privately would jeopardize judicial authority and public order.

c. GUIDELINES

No formal guidelines were issued, but the judgment implicitly establishes:

The objective definition of a pending appeal under labour law includes all appeals formally filed, regardless of maintainability.
A strike is automatically illegal during such pendency.
The state can prescribe minimum thresholds for union recognition under labour legislation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment is a pivotal moment in the jurisprudence of industrial constitutionalism. It underlines the balance between fundamental rights and legislative intent for industrial harmony. The Court’s approach in interpreting pending appeals broadly aligns with the aim of preserving industrial peace, a legitimate public interest under Article 19(4). The ruling affirms that freedom of association is not an unrestricted privilege; rather, it is subject to reasonable limitations. The Court carefully examines the legislative framework of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, sustaining its constitutionality on the touchstone of reasonableness and equality.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred