Civil Appeal No 341 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 241986 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 1946 of 1984
DN Devedi
C Ramesh and P Parmeshwaran for the Appellants
RK Garg and DK Garg for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
Leave granted
This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against a judgment passed by High Court of Bombay in Misc
Petition No 194684 decided on 241986
A Writ petition before the High Court was filed by MTSSD Workers  Union Pune and two of the employees in the establishment in which this union is functioning
In this Writ Petition an order was sought quashing the decision of the 827 authorities concerned of the petitioner who by their order dated 3111984 informed the union about the scheme of the election to the Works Committee on the basis of the division in different constitutencies
This order of the Commandant was conveyed to the respondent union
These Works Committees were to be constituted for the period 1984 86
The question that was considered by the High Court was as to whether such a distribution was permissible under the Rules framed under 
The Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that such a distribution of constituencies is not permissible in view of the scheme of the Rules especially Rules 394142 and 43 of the Central Rules framed under the 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that Rule 39 when it talks of representation to the various categories and groups and class of workmen it contemplates that such constituencies be divided so that various sections groups and categories of workers skilled unskilled clerical and otherwise may get appropriate representation
Learned counsel also relied on the proviso to Rule 43 to justify the division of the constitutencies which was done by the impugned order which was set aside by the High Court of Bombay
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Works Committees are expected to go into day to day problems and they are expected to be so constituted that they bring harmony and better functioning of the industry and it is for this purpose
According to the learned counsel Rule 42 contemplates only division in two constitutencies that is those who are members of a registered trade union and those who are not members of the registered trade union and even while providing for such a distribution in Rule 42 it has been further provided that where more than half the workers belong to one registered trade union then there is no need for any division of constituencies and election will only be by general vote of the workers in the industry
It was contended by learned counsel that this scheme of these Rules contemplates that where there is a union representing the majority of workers there is no occasion for any distribution of constituencies so that the union and the management with the help of the Works Committee may resolve day to day problems and the industry may run smoothly in the interest of production and industrial peace
He therefore contended that the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the scheme of the Rules is justified
828 The constitution of the Works Committees has been provided for in Section 3 of the which reads as under 3
Works Committee1 In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months the appropriate Government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment so however that the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer
The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union if any registered under the India XVI of 1926
2 It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to pro mote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and to that end to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters
 It is clear from the language used in this Section that the representatives of workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner and it shall be so done in consultation with their trade union if there is any registered under the Indian 
It is because of this that the Rules have prescribed the manner in which the Works Committees will be constituted
In Chapter 7 of the Rules framed under Industrial Disputes Central Rules 1957 it has been provided for a constitution of the Works Committee
Rule 39 on which much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the appellants reads Number of members The number of members constituting the Committee shall be fixed so as to afford representation to the various categories groups and class of workmen engaged in and to the sections shops or departments of the establishment 829 Provided that the total number of members shall not exceed twenty Provided further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer This Rule talks of the number of members to constitute a Works Committee and it has been provided that the number shall be so fixed keeping in view that representation could be made in the Committee of workers engaged in different sections shops departments of the establishment
It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was because of this that the management in this industry chose to distribute the constituencies in such a manner that there may be representatives in the Works Committee of different sections and departments of the industry
But it is clear that Rule 39 does not talk of any distribution of constituencies
The relevant Rule which provides for group of workmen s representatives is Rule 42 but Rule 41 contemplates consultation with the trade unions and where there is a registered trade union the management is expected to ask the registered trade union to give information as to how many of the workmen are members of the union and how their membership is distributed among the sections shops and departments of the establishment
Rule 41 reads as under Consultation with trade unions 1 Where any workmen of an establishment are members of a registered trade union the employer shall ask the union to inform him in writing a how many of the workmen are members of the union and b how their membership is distributed among the sections shops or departments of the establishment
2 Where an employer has reason to believe that the information furnished to him under sub rule 1 by any trade union is false he may after informing the union refer the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central concerned for his decision and the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central after hearing the parties shall decide 830 the matter and his decision shall be final
 Rule 42 reads thus Group of workmen s representatives on receipt of the information called for under Rule 41 the employer shall provide for the election of workmen s representative on the Committee in two groups 1 those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment who are members of the registered trade union or unions and 2 those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment who are not members of the registered trade union or unions
bearing the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non members Provided that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions no such division shall be made Provided further that where a registered trade union neglects or fails to furnish the information called for under sub rule 1 of Rule 41 within one month of the date of the notice requiring it to furnish such information such union shall for the purpose of this rule be treated as if it did not exist Provided further that where any reference has been made by the employer under sub rule 2 of Rule 41 the election shall be held on receipt of the decision of Assistant Labour Commissioner Central  This Rule clearly provides that the workers  representatives in the Committee will be in two groups1 those who are elected by the workmen who are members of the registered trade union or unions and 2 other those who will be elected by the workmen of the establishment who are not members of the registered trade union or unions and it is further provided that this number would bear the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear 831 to the non members
That clearly shows that if in an industry there is or are registered trade unions and they have their membership as the management will know under the scheme of Section 41 the management will fix the number of seats in the Works Committee to be elected by the members of the union and by those who are not the members of the union and the ratio between the members representing the union members and the members representing those who are not union members will be the same as membership of the union vis a vis non members in the establishment
There is yet another proviso which provides that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions no such division will be made
This clearly goes to show that where in an industry or an establishment the majority of the workers are in one union the distribution as provided in Rule 42 will not be necessary it will only be one constituency
This scheme of Rule 42 read with this proviso clearly goes to show that where there is any registered trade union representing the majority of workers more than 50 the question of distribution of constituencies does not arise
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that proviso to Rule 43 contemplates division of the constituencies into various sheds departments and sections as was done by the management which was quashed by the High Court
Rule 43 reads as under 43
Electoral constituencies Where under Rule 42 of the workmen s representatives are to be elected in two groups the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two electoral constituencies the one consisting of those who are members of a registered trade union and the other of those who are not Provided that the employer may if he thinks fit subdivide the Electoral constituency or constituencies as the case may be and direct that workmen shall vote in either by groups sections shops or departments
 This Rule starts with a situation where under Rule 42 the workmen s representatives are to be elected in two groups and where such a situation exists
The proviso further provides that if the employer thinks fit may sub divide the electoral constituencies in a manner so that the workers may vote either by groups or by sections or by departments
But it is clear from the language of this Rule that this sub division of constituencies only could be done if Rule 43 comes into 832 operation
Admittedly in the present case in this industry the respondent trade union represents the majority of the workers that it has more than SO per cent as its members and the occasion for distribution of the works committee into two constituencies as contemplated in Rule 42 does not arise and if it is not so then Rule 43 does not come into operation at all as Rule 43 itself clearly states that this Rule only comes into operation where under Rule 42 the workers representatives are to be elected in two groups
It is therefore clear that this proviso to Rule 43 is not an independent substantive provision and therefore on this basis the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is of no substance
It is therefore clear that the scheme of these Rules for constitution of Works Committees clearly providea where there is a registered trade union having more than SO per cent membership of the workers in that establishment the total number of members of the Works Committee will be elected without distribution of any constituenciesb if in an industry no trade union registered under the represents more than 50 per cent of the members then only the election will be held in two constituencies one from the members of the registered trade union or unions and the other from non members of the trade unions and it is only in this contingency it is further provided that if the employer thinks proper may further sub divide the constituency into department section or shed
This clearly indicates that there may be a situation in an particular establishment where some section may have no membership of any trade union at all whereas in other sections there may be membership of trade unions then if under Rule 42 it has to divide in two constituencies that is members of the registered trade union and non members
It may further sub divide in order to provide for representation to any section of workmen who have no representation in any trade union at all
It is therefore clear that when there is a registered trade union in an establishment having more than SO per cent membership this exercise under Rule 43 is futile and is not called for as in this case as admittedly the respondent unions membership is more than 50 per cent
The distribution of constituencies under Rule 42 is not contemplated and therefore there is no occasion for Rule 43 or proviso therein to come into operation
In this view of the matter in our opinion the judgment of the High Court is correct and we see no reason to interfere with it
The appeal is therefore dismissed
In the Circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs
N P V Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were suspected of exporting potatoes at concessional rates on false declarations and Madan Lal a Railway Officer was deputed to assist the Police in the investigation
In course of that investigation the appellants offered a bribe to Madan Lal for hushing up the case but he refused to accept it
As they persisted in their offer a trap was laid in Madan Lal s house and it succeeded
Two Police Officers and a Magistrate heard the conversation from the adjoining room and saw the payment of the bribe through a hole
The appellants were charged under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy to cause the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under section 52 of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 to be committed by Madan Lal as also under that section read with section 116 of the Indian Penal Code
They were convicted by the Special Judge on both the counts and their convictions were upheld by the High Court
The contentions on their behalf were that section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had no application to the facts of the case that Madan Lal was not a public servant within the meaning of the Act and lastly that the laying of the trap was an invitation to commit the crime and afforded a good reason for reduction of the sentences
Held that the contentions were untenable and must be rejected
That the word obtains occurring in clause d to sub section 1 of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not exclude the idea of acceptance of a bribe on offer and a public servant whether he simply accepts a bribe or solicits or extorts it thereby obtains a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public servant and commits an offence under that section any consideration as to motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour being altogether irrelevant
That as a result of the amendment of section 137 of the Indian Railways Act by the Amendment Act of 1955 all railway servants have become public servants not only for the limited purposes of Ch
IX 183 of the Indian Penal Code but generally under the Prevention of Corruption Act
That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that the laying of traps especially in cases of this nature should be deprecated as constituting an invitation to commit an offence and an offence thus detected does not lose its gravity thereby so as to call for a lenient sentence
Where however proper limits are exceeded and the money to be given as bribe is supplied by the Police it must be severely condemned
Brennan vs Peek 1947 2 All ER 572 considered
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another vs The State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954 SCR 1098 and Bamjanam Singh vs The State of Bihar Cr
Appeal No 81 of 1953 referred to