A. D. DESAI, J. B. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE various petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the relevant provisions which have been introduced regarding the joint management councils by the Amending Gujarat Act No. 21 of 1972 Bombay Industrial Relations and Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Amendment Act 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act. The petitioners challenge the competence of these provisions of secs. 53a and 53 so far as they apply to these four industries viz. (1) the Cotton Tex tiles (2) the Silk Textiles (3) the Sugar and (4) Textile processing under the relevant order issued by the State Government under sec. 53a on the ground of want of total lack of legislative competence and also as violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution The State Government in its affidavit had however pointed out the entire relevant background of this legislation. The Government industrial policy resolution was passed as early as in 196 envisaging association of labour with the management in this country. A study group had been sent to European countries in 1956 to study the working of similar schemes and to make suitable recommendations for introducing the scheme of the workers participating in the management in our country. The recommendations of the study group were accepted by the 15th Session of the Indian Labour Conference in July 1957. A tripartite conference was set up to work out the details and workable scheme and they were finalized by the two subsequent tripartite seminars on this subject in 1958 and 1960. Under this arrangement the legislative measure was postponed for two years so that the scheme would be introduced voluntarily. The scheme envisaged consultation of labour in certain specified matters sharing information on certain aspects of the undertaking and to assume administrative responsibilities in respect of certain matters such as welfare safety vocational training etc. The scheme was thus envisaged to establish cordial relations between the management and the workers and building of understanding and trust between them and to promote measures leading to substantial increase in productivity securing better welfare and other facilities for the workers and the training of the workers to understand and share responsibility of management and in the light of all these objectives the scheme had been finalised. Various Five years Plans had also contemplate this labour participation in the management being implemented speedily for evolving the industrial democracy. As however this voluntary salutary reform could not all these years be successfully implemented the Government had stated that they had undertaken this legislation by accepting this fundamental principle of workers participation in the management and for that purpose this amendment was introduced. That is why they lave supported validity of this measure as a labour welfare measure and contended that it does not violate any constitutional fetter. So far as we are concerned with those industries governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 194 the relevant amendments which would be material are in the following provisions. Sec. 3 (11a) defines the term Council as a Joint Management Council for any undertaking constituted under sec. 53a. Sec. 53a is as follows : (1) If in respect of any industry the State Government is of the opinion that it is desirable in public interest to take action under this section it may in the case of all undertakings or any class of undertakings in such industry in which five hundred or more employees are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time-limit a Joint Management Council consisting of such number of members as may be prescribed comprised of representatives of employers and employees engaged in the undertaking so however that the number of representatives of the employees on the Council shall not be less than the member of representatives of the employers. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the representatives of the employees on the Council shall be elected in the prescribed manner by the employees engaged in the undertaking from amongst themselves: provided that a list of industries in respect of which no order is issued under this sub-section shall be laid by the State Government before the State legislature within thirty days from the commencement of its first Session of each year. (2) One of the members of the Council shall be appointed as Chairman in accordance with rules made in this behalf. ( 2 ) SEC. (2) One of the members of the Council shall be appointed as Chairman in accordance with rules made in this behalf. ( 2 ) SEC. 53b is as follows : the Council shall be charged with the general duty to promote and assist in the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economical manner and for that purpose and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions it shall be the duty of the Council (a) to promote cordial relations between the employer and employees; (b) to build up understanding and trust between them. (c) to promote measures which lead to substantial increase in productivity; (d) to secure better administration of welfare measures and adequate safety measures (e) to train the employees in understanding the responsibilities of management of the undertaking and in sharing such responsibilities to the extent considered feasible; and (f) to do such other things as may be prescribed. (2) The Council shall be consulted by the employer on all matters relating to the management of the undertaking specified in sub-sec. (1) and it shall be the duty of the Council to advise the employer on any matter so referred to it. (3) The Council shall be entrusted by the employer with such administrative functions appearing to be connected with or relevant to the discharge by the Council of its duties under this section as may be prescribed (4) It shall be the duty of the employer to furnish to the Council necessary information relating to such matters as may be prescribed for the purpose of enabling it to discharge its duties under this Act. (5) The Council shall follow such procedure in the discharge of its duties as may be prescribed. Rule 61z-Duties of the Council :it shall be the endeavour of the Council (i) to improve the working conditions of the employees; (ii) to encourage suggestions from the employees; (iii) to assist the administration of laws and agreement; (iv) to serve generally as an authentic channel of communication between the management and the employees; (v) to create in the employees a sense of participation; (vi) to render advice in the general administration of standing orders and their amendment when needed; (vii) to render advice on matters pertaining to retrenchment rationalisation closure reduction in or cessation of operations. Rule 61z-AAdministrative functions with which the Council shall be entrusted by the employer :- The Council shall be entrusted by the employer with administrative functions in respect of (i) operation of vocational training and apprenticeship schemes; (ii) preparation of schedules of working hours and breaks and of holidays; and (iii) payment of rewards for valuable suggestions received from the employees. Rule 61z-BMatters in respect if which the Council shall be entitled to receive information :- The Council shall be furnished by the employer with information in respect of (i) general economic situation of the concern (ii) the state of market production and sales programmes; (iii) organisation and general running of the undertaking; (iv) circumstances affecting the economic position of the undertaking; (v) methods of manufacture and work; (vi) the annual balance sheet and profit and loss of statement and connected provisions and explanation; and (vi) long term plan for expansion re-employment etc. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the petitioners advocates challenged the aforesaid impugned provisions and the order issued by the State Government for constitution of the Joint Management Councils in these four industries on the following five grounds: (1) In pith and substance the impugned legislation does not fall in Entry 22 of labour disputes or in Entry 24 of labour welfare in List 111 but its real subject matter is of either Entry 43 List I of regulations of corporations or Entry 52 List I of controlled industries within the exclusive competence of the Parliament and therefore the impugned provisions lack legislative competence; (2)That the said provisions in sec. 53a and sec. 53b and the Rules 61z 61 and 61z-B violate Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution (3) That so far as Rule 61z-A is concerned it is so wide in its scope that disclosure of information which can be compelled can be even of confidential nature like trade secrets or which sill otherwise he harmful to the undertakings without any seal of secrecy and so it would be ruinous to the management and to that extent the rule would clearly be illegal ultra vires and would violate Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g) as well; (4) That under sec. 14 and 19 (1) (g) as well; (4) That under sec. 53a no such order could be issued without hearing the interests affected and without due application of mind to the necessary condition precedent of disirability of such action in public interest on basis of proper materials so far as these industries are concerned (5) That in any event sec. 53a and sec. 53b suffer from the vice of excessive delegation especially as there were no guidelines or the guideline of public interest was wholly vague and nebulous. ( 4 ) BEFORE we go into these relevant contentions of the petitioners it would be proper at the outset to examine the scheme of these relevant impugned provisions. Chapter IX has been introduced of Joint Management Councils where these two relevant secs. 53a and 53b find their place. Sec. 53 in terms empowers the State Government to require by general or special order employers to constitute in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time limit such Joint Management Councils consisting of the prescribed number of representatives of employers and employees. The relevant guidelines which are provided for the State Governments order are (1) That the State Government is of the opinion that it is desirable in public interest to take action under this section and (2) that in such an event in case of all undertakings or any class of undertakings in such industry in which or more employees were employed or had been employed in the preceding 12 months that this order can be passed requiring the employer to constitute a Joint Management Council. Thereafter these employees on the Council would be elected in the prescribed manner by the employees engaged in the undertaking from amongst themselves and one of the members would be appointed as the chairman in accordance with the rules. The scheme of sec. 53a is therefore complete in itself and it only leaves to the delegate viz the State Government to pass relevant statutory order requiring the employer to constitute such Councils when those two relevant criteria would be satisfied viz; (1) that the Government had formed the opinion of desirability in the public interest of taking such action under sec. 53a is therefore complete in itself and it only leaves to the delegate viz the State Government to pass relevant statutory order requiring the employer to constitute such Councils when those two relevant criteria would be satisfied viz; (1) that the Government had formed the opinion of desirability in the public interest of taking such action under sec. 53a in respect of any industry and (2) that the order was in case of those big units where 500 or more employees were employed or had been employed on any day in the preceding 12 months. ( 5 ) THE next material section is sec. 53b which defines the functions of the Councils. In sub-sec. (1) the legislature has provided that the Council shall be charged with the general duty to promote and assist in the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economical manner. After charging the Council with this general duty it is further enacted in sub-clause (i) that for that purpose and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision there will be certain specified duties of the Council. The five specified duties enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) are: promotion of cordial relations between the employer and employees; to build up understanding and trust between them; to promote measures which lead to substantial increase in productivity; to secure better administration of welfare measures and adequate safety measures; and to train the employees in understanding the responsibilities of management of the undertaking and in sharing such responsibilities to the extent considered feasible. Thereafter clause (f) to sub-sec. (1) provides that the Council shall do such other things as may be prescribed by the rules. The relevant rule 61z has laid down the following seven more duties of the Council:- To improve the working conditions of the employees; to encourage suggestions from the employees; to assist in the administration of laws and agreements; to serve generally as an authentic channel of communication between the management and the employees; to create in the employees a sense of participation; to render advice in the general administration of Standing Orders and their amendment when needed; to render advice on matters pertaining to retrenchment rationalisation closure reduction in or cessation of operations. As this clause (f) in sub-sec. (1) of sec. As this clause (f) in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 53b depends on the prescription of those specified particular duties the list may be enlarged from time to time by prescription by the rule making authority. But all these particular specified duties have the common genus because those duties are without prejudice to the generality of the general duty which is prescribed at the outset in sec. 53b (1) of promoting and assisting in the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economic manner. It is with that goal in mind and to give effect to that general duty with which the Council is charged that the particular duties would be from time to time expanded under sec. 53b (1) (f) by the rule-making authority ( 6 ) THE other clauses (2) and (3) and (4) deal with the various rights which are created for this Council. Sub-clause (2) in terms provides that the Council shall be consulted by the employer on all matters relating to the management of the undertaking specified in sub-sec. (1) and it shall be the duty of the Council to advise the employer on any matter so referred to it. The matters specified in sub-sec. (1) would clearly mean particularised in sub-sec. (1) and they would have clear reference to the specified duties in sub-sec. (1) (a) to (f) when read with the items in the relevant Rule 61-Z and on all these matters the Council has a right to be consulted by the employer. Correspondingly there is a duty of the Council to advise the employer on any matter so referred to it. Similarly when we turn to sub-sec. (3) the Council is expected to be entrusted by the employer with such administrative functions appearing to be connected with or relevant to the discharge by the Council of its duties under this section as may be prescribed. These prescribed administrative functions with which the Council shall be entrusted by the employer are enumerated; at present in Rule 61z-A and they are three particular administrative functions viz. operation of vocational training and apprenticeship schemes preparation of schedules of working hours and breaks and of holidays; and payment of rewards for valuable suggestions received from the employees. That is why in sub-sec. operation of vocational training and apprenticeship schemes preparation of schedules of working hours and breaks and of holidays; and payment of rewards for valuable suggestions received from the employees. That is why in sub-sec. (3) also these administrative functions which would be subordinate functions to the management aspect are referred to by reference to the duties which the Council has to discharge under sec. 53b (1) and would clearly mean these specified duties which are falling within sub-clause (1)-clauses (a) to (f) read with rule 61z. Thereafter sub-clause (4) deals with the duty of the employer to furnish to the council necessary information relating to such matters as may be perscribed for the purpose for enabling it to discharge its duties under the Act. These matters are now particularised in Rule 61z-B. They relate to general economic situation of the concern; the state of the market production and sales programmes organisation and general running of the undertaking; circumstances affecting the economic position of the undertaking; methods of manufacture and work; the annual balancesheet and profit and loss of statement and connected documents and explanation; and long term plan for expansion reemployment etc. Here also the right of disclosure which flows to the Council from the corresponding duty imposed on the employer in respect of these prescribed matters under Rule 51z-B is for the purpose of enabling the Council to discharge its specified duties which as we have earlier pointed out are in sec. 53b (1) clauses (a) to (f) read with Rule 61z Therefore all these specific rights of consultation and advice and subordinate administrative functions as distinguished from managerial functions and of disclosure of necessary information to keep the Council well-informed so that consultation would be meaningful are by reference to these specified duties which ofcourse can go on being enlarged from time to time by further matters being added by the rule-making authority. They would all be within the general genus of promoting and assisting in the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economic manner as enumerated at the outset in sec. 53a (1) because it is without prejudice to the generality of this provision that these detailed specifications are given making provisions also for enlargement from time to time. 53a (1) because it is without prejudice to the generality of this provision that these detailed specifications are given making provisions also for enlargement from time to time. This is the categorical statement of the whole purpose that the Council is charged with the general duty of promoting and assisting in the management. Therefore these three specific rights of consultation handling of administrative functions and proper apprisal by disclosure of information are invested on the Council to enable it to discharge those specific duties in the light of the general duty fastened on the Council that the whole consultation and assistance which it gives in the management of the undertaking is with the view that the undertaking is managed in a more efficient orderly and economic manner. Sub-clause (5) merely states that the Council shall follow such procedure in the discharge of its duties as may be prescribed. ( 7 ) THIS scheme of sec. 53b clearly reveals an intention to start this labour management participation initially as a modest measure by requiring the council only to promote and assist the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economic manner by having these three rights of consultation adminstrative functions and disclosure of necessary information with regard to only those specified items at present mentioned in sub-clauses (1) (d) to (f) and Rule 61z. The consultation and advice are confined to those limited matters and even the whole disclosure of information is for enabling the Council to discharge those duties. Further even the administrative functions are delegated to the extent prescribed in Rule 61z-A which are for enabling the Council to discharge those specified duties. There are it is obvious that the present experiment that is envisaged is only a limited labour management participation to the extent we have explained in this scheme. Therefore most of the contentions of the petitioners which were based on the wider scope of those functions treating General duty it self as a specified matter were on the misapprehension of the scheme and that is why Mr. Nanavati rightly said that on this narrow interpretation the rationality test being fully satisfied he would not be challenging the scheme under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g ). in view of the aforesaid construction. Nanavati rightly said that on this narrow interpretation the rationality test being fully satisfied he would not be challenging the scheme under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g ). in view of the aforesaid construction. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY so far as Rule 61z-B was concerned its scope also in view of the aforesaid interpretation would not be so wide. There is intrinsic evidence in sec. 53b (1 ). The specified duties for the purpose of which this necessary information has to be furnished to the Council cannot envisage any information which would be harmful to the undertaking. The Councils general duty was for promoting and assisting the management in a more efficient orderly and economic manner and that would show that what is contemplated is not any injurious disclosure. Similarly a clear absence of any provision of a seal of secrecy on those who have obtained disclosure of information of the undertaking is very suggestive if we bear in mind that such provision is to be found in sec. 105 when any information is given to a Conciliators Wage Board Labour Officer or persons present at or concerned in the conciliation. It would clearly reveal the intention of the legislature the confidential trade secrets or technical know-how and such other information whose disclosure would be harmful to the undertaking are not envisaged. Even Mr. Nanavati could not even dispute the positive content that the disclosure of information must be at least such information which has to be supplied to a shareholder. Even a much larger disclosure is envisaged as right to manage is not the right to mismanage or maladminister. But there is clearly a limitation inherent that the information would not be such confidential information or of trade secrets or the like whose disclosure would otherwise be harmful to the undertaking. Even the learned Government Pleader did not pitch his contention anything higher. In view of this natural interpretation of the relevant scheme of the impugned provisions Mr. Nanavati fairly stated that he did not press his objection as regards the rationality test being violated in the impugned scheme under Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (g) whether in respect of the impugned provisions of sec. 53a or sec. 53b or the relevant rules. Therefore grounds Nos. 2 and 3 in view of the aforesaid construction of the impugned provisions do not require any further consideration. 53a or sec. 53b or the relevant rules. Therefore grounds Nos. 2 and 3 in view of the aforesaid construction of the impugned provisions do not require any further consideration. ( 9 ) AS for ground No. 4 it is based on an erroneous assumption that audi alterem partem rule would be attracted to such an order. As we have earlier pointed out sec. 53a is a measure of conditional legislation which is complete by itself even though exercise of statutory power by the delegate State Government by issuing relevant notification for constitution of the Joint Management Council depends on the relevant criteria being fulfilled. This would never give rise to a complaint that a rule of natural justice had not been followed before issuing this notification. An indentical question had arisen before their Lordships in SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA 1973 (9) S. C. C. 630 in the context of price fixation measures. At page 646 their Lordships in terms pointed out that price fixation was more in the nature of a legislative measure even though it might be based upon objective criteria found in a report or other material and it could not therefore give rise to a complaint that a rule of natural justice had not been followed in fixing the price. Nevertheless crietrion adopted must be reasonable. Reasonableness for purposes of judging. whether there was an excess of power or an arbitrary exercise of it was really the demonstration of a reasonable nexus between the matters which were taken into account in exercising a power and the purpose of exercise of that power. In view of this settled legal position there would be no question of any hearing of the interests affected or of the concerned interest being consulted even in a representative capacity before issuing this notification. The petitioner had in this connection vehemently relied upon a decision in STATE ASSAM V. BHARAT KALA MANDIR A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1666 AT PAGE 1774 where in context of an order passed under the Defence of India Rules such consultation was held to be mandatory. but which could hardly be pressed into service in the present context. The petitioner had in this connection vehemently relied upon a decision in STATE ASSAM V. BHARAT KALA MANDIR A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1666 AT PAGE 1774 where in context of an order passed under the Defence of India Rules such consultation was held to be mandatory. but which could hardly be pressed into service in the present context. In Bharat Kala Mandirs case the Government order issued under the Defence of India Rules sought to supersede the existing industrial awards and disturbed the settled industrial relations based on existing contracts and awards and in that context the provision of some consultation and due notice was implied. The administrative law would imply such notice and consultation in the context of such wide power being statutorily exercised. But that provision would have no application in the context of this legislative measure. In this view of the matter even the alternative prang of Mr. Nanavatis argument would not help him because the only material question would be whether the rational criteria are laid down for the guidance of the delegate while exercising this statutory power under sec. 53a and there would be no question of any challenge on the ground of want of due application of mind as in case of administrative or quasijudicial orders. Therefore even ground No. 4 would clearly fail in view of this interpretation of sec. 53 A as a legislative measure. ( 10 ) AS for ground No. 5 so far as sec. 53b is concerned we have pointed out the guidelines which are laid down for adding to the specified functions for the rule making authority because specified duties are particularised from the general genus laid down while defining the general duty of the Council of promoting and assisting in the management of the undertaking in a more efficient orderly and economic manner. Besides as the addition of the specified functions enumeration of administrative functions and heads of information have to be laid down by the rule making authority. there is a further guidance in the very opening words of Rule 123 investing this power in the rule making authority that it is to be exercised for purposes of the Act. Besides as the addition of the specified functions enumeration of administrative functions and heads of information have to be laid down by the rule making authority. there is a further guidance in the very opening words of Rule 123 investing this power in the rule making authority that it is to be exercised for purposes of the Act. In fact the entire scheme of this labour management participation even though to the limited extent as envisaged in this Chapter 1x is a labour welfare measure pure and simple and that is why it clearly serves the main purpose of this Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The very preamble states that the object is to regulate the relations of employers and employees to make provision for settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for certain other purposes. Therefore this industrial legislation not only contemplates peaceful resolution of industrial disputes but its salutary aim is to promote more harmonious and better relations between the employers and employees so that the production goes on with willing and hearty cooperation without any dislocation strike lock out go-slow or other industrial warfare. This particular amendment is one of the steps to complete this process of establishing this industrial democracy by instilling a spirit of willing partcipants in the labour and thereby securing their better co-operation resulting in a more efficient and orderly and economic management of the undertaking Therefore it cannot be argued that sec. 53 B suffers from ally vice of excessive delegation when the guide-lines are so eloquent and obvious. ( 11 ) AS far as sec. 53a besides the guide-line of the limit for a bigger unit employing 500 or more employees for the introduction of the: councils a further statuory guide-line is the relevant statutory opinion of the State Government that this action is desirable in the public interest to be taken in respect of any particular industry. Mr. Nanavati vehemently argued that the expression public interest is wholly nebulous. In the present context the guidance has to be sufficiently wide when such a new experiment which all these years had remained the voluntary experiment was sought to be implemented by a legislative reform. Mr. Nanavati vehemently argued that the expression public interest is wholly nebulous. In the present context the guidance has to be sufficiently wide when such a new experiment which all these years had remained the voluntary experiment was sought to be implemented by a legislative reform. Public interest is an expression which has a definite content and connotation and so far as the particular scheme introduces such a labour welfare measure by promoting labour management participation it would subserve a vital public interest by fostering the spirit of participation in the labour. It would not only subserve the interests of the industry and the labour concerned but would surely redound to the general interest of the community with the improvement of the industrial relations in the industrial units. This wider criterion has been deliberately envisaged because this experiment had to be first time introduced in our country and therefore it had to be seen that it was not nipped in the bud by being introduced at an inopportune time when all the hostile factors would nip it in the bud. Therefore this criterion has been introduced of desirability in public interest of an action being taken under sec. 53a and it has been left to the highest expert body the State Government itself which has all the necessary information for coming to the right conclusion on these matters. Therefore it could never be contended that sec. 53a suffers from the vice of excessive delegation inasmuch as no guidance is disclosed. After the decision in GWALIOR RAYON MILLS V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1660 the legal position is now well settled that once a delegate is given necessary guide-lines such a conditional or even a subordinate delegated legislation would not suffer from the fault of any excessive delegation of legislative power. Therefore ground No. 5 must equally fail. ( 12 ) THAT leads us to the main ground of Mr. Nanavati and other petitioners of want of legislative competence. While considering this question of legislative competence one must always bear in mind that these words of the legislative entries are common words like labour disputes or labour welfare which are not the words of art or of technical Meaning and must have the widest interpretation so that proper labour welfare measures can be enacted by the legislature. While considering this question of legislative competence one must always bear in mind that these words of the legislative entries are common words like labour disputes or labour welfare which are not the words of art or of technical Meaning and must have the widest interpretation so that proper labour welfare measures can be enacted by the legislature. In SITARAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN A. I. R. 1974 S C. 1373 AT PAGE 1375 in the context of acquisition of a road transport undertaking their Lordships pointed out that the subject-matter of the impugned provisions clearly falls within the items 35 of mechanically propelled vehicle and Item 42 of List III acquisition of property and not within Item 43 of List I of regulation of Corporations Such a law was concerned with the acquisition and was not concerned with the regulation or winding up of trading corporation. That is why the salutary test which was evolved was that the constitutionality of the law was to be determined by its real subject-matter and not by the incidental effect which it might have on any topic of legislation of List as per the settled legal position. Even in the case of the KANAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. V. THE STATE OF KERALA A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2301 their Lordships had in terms held at pages 2307 2308 that if the State had legislative competence to legislate on land in Entry 18 List 11 and Entry 42 List III acquisition of property that power could not be denied on the ground that it had some effect on an industry controlled under Entry 52 List I. That is why their Lordships made the pertinent observation that effect was not the same things as subject-matter. If a State Act otherwise valid and effect on a matter in List 1 it did not cease to be a legislation With respect to an Entry in List 11 or List 111. The object of the impugned sections was to enable the State to acquire all the lands which did not fall within certain categories and those provisions were really incidental to the exercise of the power of acquisition. The object of the impugned sections was to enable the State to acquire all the lands which did not fall within certain categories and those provisions were really incidental to the exercise of the power of acquisition. That is way at page 2309 their Lordships pointed out that it was not necessary to consider the situation were the State legislation on a topic of List 111 made the control of industry by the Union virtually impossible. That is not the question here also. Therefore once a legislation squarely fails under this relevant labour Entries 22 and 24 of labour disputes and labour welfare merely because this labourparticipation is in the management of controlled industries or of limited corporations the subject matter would not be in any manner changed. The subject matter would remain labour welfare measure pure and simple even though it might have some incidental elect on these corporate undertakings of these controlled industries. ( 13 ) THAT is why the primary question which has to he considered is whether this is a labour welfare reform. Labour participation in the management is not a participation of the outsiders like investors concumers or by way of the control of the Government. Therefore whatever control ensues in a limitative way by reason of this consultative participation is clearly as a result of the labour welfare measure. The legislation in such a case is not for a control of the industries from other larger angles of investors consumers or for the Government control of trading corporations but for the sole purpose of making this industrial venture which is a joint venture carried on with the cooperation of capital and laboura real industrial democracy. Labour all along felt a sense of alienation and for a solution of even the problems of labour disputes this step in the right direction had to be taken to foster this Sense of participation. Consultation would lead to the participation and the sense of participation or belonging would result in greater contribution by larger willing cooperation whose immediate effect within be to prevent labour disputes with the consequent industrial was fare. That is why in this context when the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966 was challenged in the decision in GUJARAT BEEDI KARKHANA OWNERS ASSOCIATION and ORS. That is why in this context when the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966 was challenged in the decision in GUJARAT BEEDI KARKHANA OWNERS ASSOCIATION and ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA 13 G. L. R. 690 AT PAGE 712 speaking for the Division Bench consisting of myself and D A Desai J. I had observed at page 712 that the whole problem of industrial relations Can be very shortly stated as the devising of means to reconcile the conflict of interest which existed between the employer and the employees The sense of deprivation which had resulted from loss of independence could be compensated only by a realisation of partnership in a greater enterprise and a greater adventure than man ever undertook in isolation. The realisation of partnership was not only or even mainly a matter of monetary reward it was a matter of spirit; it was a question of human dignity; it was what differentiates the worker from the machine. Until the spirit of partnership became the spirit of industrial relations conflict as to the division of the existing product of industry obscured the need for cooperation towards greater productivity out of which alone could come real advance in material prosperity. The origin of the problem lay in the divorce of the worker from the ownership) of the instruments and materials of production as observed by Professor B. S. Kirkaldy in his lectures on The Spirit of Industrial Relations (1947 edition) and the solution must be sought in realisation of this co-partnership. That is why even the industry is defined as any organised activity where the capital and labour cooperate for production of material goods or material services essential for the community. It is this cooperation as a co-partner in the joint venture which is imprinted on the product. That is why even the industry is defined as any organised activity where the capital and labour cooperate for production of material goods or material services essential for the community. It is this cooperation as a co-partner in the joint venture which is imprinted on the product. That was the sine qua non for the success of the industrial enterprise wherein not only the capital and labour are interested but the State as a whole and the community at large are also vitally interested Further proceeding at page 718 the decision in NIELMA TEXTILE FINISHING MILLS LTD V THE 2nd PUNJAB TRIBUNAL A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 329 AT PAGE 339 was referred to where their Lordships had upheld the validity of the industrial Disputes Act 1947 not only under Entry 22 of labour disputes but on the wider Entry 24 of labour welfare That is why it was it terms held that the impugned legislation in that case was also covered as a labour welfare measure and it was not in any way legislation for industries. When the matter want in appeal before the Supreme Court in MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS V THE UNION OF INDIA A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1832 this decision was in terms approved and their Lordships also held at page 1840 that the pith and substance of the legislation was regulation of conditions of employment in the beedi and cigar industry. Entries 29 and 24 in List III were were enough to cover the piece of such labour welfare measure At page 1839 their Lordships further pointed out that such a legislation which was for the welfare of labour was not a legislation for industries and therefore it could never fail within Entry 52 in List I. In view of this settled legal position in the present context once we come to the conclusion that this is pure and simple labour welfare measure even though it may have incidental effect on controlled industries or on trading corporations the subject-matter will remain labour welfare or labour disputes as the legislature in stages was completing the whole legislation in the matter of labour disputes by this salutary amendment. Therefore there was no substance in the contention that entry 43 List I or entry 52 List 1 would cover this legislative topic. Mr. Therefore there was no substance in the contention that entry 43 List I or entry 52 List 1 would cover this legislative topic. Mr. Nanavati had in this connection relied on the decision in MADRAS STATE V. GANNON DUNKERLEY and CO. A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 560 AT PAGE 277 where Entry 48 sale of goods was held to be nomen juris because it was a technical term of art or law. That decision could never be pressed into service in the context of Entries 22 and 24 in List 111 of labour disputes and labour welfare while are not words of art or of technical character so as to have any special technical meaning and which would have therefore to be interpreted in the widest context so as to confer plenary power on the concerned legislature in that behalf. In that view of the matter even the first ground raised by Mr. Nanavati must fail. No other contention survives and therefore all these petitions must fail and the rule is therefore discharged with no order as to costs in each case in the circumstances of the case. ( 14 ) MR. Nanavati asks for a certificate under Article 112 (1) and Article 133 (1 ). No constitutional or other substantial question of law arises to be settled by the Supreme Court as we have only followed the settled legal position and resolved a very simple question and we are not of the opinion that the questions involved in the present petitions are such which need to be decided by the Supreme Court. The certificate is therefore refused. The interim stay shall however continue for a period of three weeks from to-day. .