Article 226 restraint on settled industrial awards where overwhelming workmen support makes minority challenge unsuitable for writ interference.

Article 226 interference was declined against a settlement-cum-award accepted by more than 90% of workmen and approved through the Industrial Court process. A minority challenge by non-recognised unions was treated as unsuitable for extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the settlement had been acted upon and converted into an award. The broader constitutional objections to provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the alleged breach of Article 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were not examined because they had become academic in the proceeding. The petition was dismissed and the settlement and award were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the settlement-cum-award accepted by the overwhelming majority of workmen, and whether the constitutional challenge to the impugned provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the alleged violation of Article 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 survived for adjudication.

Analysis: The settlement was reached in consultation with the State and the Corporation, accepted by more than 90% of the workmen, and was thereafter placed before the Industrial Court, which converted it into an award. In those circumstances, the challenge by a minority of non-recognised unions was held to be an unfit case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the guise of public interest litigation. The Court further held that, because the settlement had already been acted upon and made an award, the broader constitutional questions regarding the validity of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act provisions did not arise for decision and were academic in the present proceeding.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The settlement and award were not interfered with, and the petition was dismissed.

---