Pendency of appeal bars strikes; representative-union membership threshold upheld as a valid industrial regulation.

Section 27 liability attached when a strike was instigated during the pendency of an appeal, because "appeal" in section 24 was given its plain meaning and no extra requirement was read in that the appeal must first be shown to be competent. The maintainability of the appeal was held to be a matter for the appellate court, and the statutory aim of preserving industrial peace would be undermined if parties could ignore the prohibition on their own view of competency. The representative-union scheme based on a minimum membership threshold was upheld as a reasonable regulatory classification, not a restriction on association or expression, and it was held not to violate Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) or 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act could lie where the strike was instigated during the pendency of an appeal that was alleged to be incompetent; (ii) Whether the statutory scheme preferring a representative union on the basis of a minimum membership requirement infringed the appellants' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act could lie where the strike was instigated during the pendency of an appeal that was alleged to be incompetent.

Analysis: The expression "appeal" in section 24 was construed in its plain and natural sense. The pendency of an appeal was held sufficient to attract the statutory prohibition against strikes, and no qualifying requirement was read into the provision that the appeal must first be shown to be valid or competent. The question whether an appeal is maintainable is for the appellate court to decide, and the statutory object of preserving industrial peace would be defeated if parties could themselves decide that an appeal was incompetent and act in breach of the prohibition.

Conclusion: The appellants were liable under section 27 notwithstanding the allegation that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was incompetent.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory scheme preferring a representative union on the basis of a minimum membership requirement infringed the appellants' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The scheme was treated as a regulatory measure designed to identify a union entitled to represent the body of workers in industrial relations. It did not prevent workmen from speaking, associating, or forming unions; it only prescribed a minimum membership threshold for preferential representative status. The classification based on membership strength was held to be rational and connected with the object of orderly industrial representation, and it did not amount to hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: The provisions were not unconstitutional and did not violate Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) or 14.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were sustained because the statutory bar operated during the pendency of the appeal and the representative-union classification was upheld as a valid regulatory arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of a statutory prohibition tied to the pendency of an appeal, the term "appeal" includes even an appeal later found to be incompetent, and a membership-based representative-union scheme is valid if it is a reasonable classification connected to the object of industrial regulation.

---