Case Note & Summary
By special leave, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from an Award dated February 9, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 294 of 1961. The litigation arose under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant was a body of workmen of M/s Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), a perfumer and tobacconist firm in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the respondent was the employer firm. The workmen challenged the Tribunal's decision that it had no jurisdiction because the reference of their dispute was not an industrial dispute. The Delhi Administration had referred the dispute under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Act by order dated September 6, 1961, after conciliation proceedings failed. The factual background was that on July 16, 1961, eighteen of the firm's forty-five employees became members of the Mercantile Employees' Association, a registered trade union in Delhi. On July 28, 1961, the firm dismissed all those eighteen employees by one order. The Mercantile Employees' Association took up the dismissed employees' cause on July 29, 1961, moved the Conciliation Officer, and eventually obtained the reference. Before the Tribunal, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the dispute was only an individual dispute between the employer and its dismissed workmen, not an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act, because apart from the eighteen dismissed employees no other employee of the firm belonged to the Association. The Tribunal upheld that objection and declined jurisdiction. The workmen then appealed to the Supreme Court. The legal issue was whether the dispute referred to the Tribunal was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) and whether the Reference under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) was valid. The appellants contended that the dispute satisfied Section 2(k) because it connected with non-employment and had been espoused by the union; the respondent relied on the absence of union membership among continuing employees. The Supreme Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar C.J., allowed the appeal. It observed that Section 2(k) defines an industrial dispute as any dispute or difference between employers and employees or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen connected with employment or non-employment. Literally, the plural included the singular, and the present dispute was between eighteen workmen and their employer, thus satisfying the definition. But the Court reiterated its earlier decisions in Central Provinces Transport Service v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan and The Newspapers Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. that a dispute raised by a dismissed employee cannot become an industrial dispute unless supported by his union or by a number of workmen. This was based on the policy of the Act to encourage collective bargaining and the healthy development of trade unionism. The Court held that the Mercantile Employees' Association had validly taken up the dispute; the fact that no other employee of the respondent was a member did not deprive the union of authority. A union of a minority of workmen could validly raise a dismissal dispute. Even if there were no union, a group of employees could raise the dispute; here the eighteen dismissed employees themselves formed a group of workmen dismissed by the same order and could support one another. The Court also held that where an establishment has no union of its own, a union of another establishment in the same industry could take up the cause if it could fairly claim a representative character. The Court distinguished Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, on the ground that in that case the evidence of the union's resolution was discarded, whereas in the present case the union's espousal was clear. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's Award and held that the reference was validly made; the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the dispute.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Definition and Scope - Section 2(k) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Dispute must be connected with employment or non-employment and plural workmen includes singular; individual dispute requires collective espousal by union or co-workers - The dispute related to dismissal of 18 workmen, thus connected with non-employment, and was espoused by the Mercantile Employees' Association; the employer's preliminary objection that it was an individual dispute was rejected. Held that the reference was valid as an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) read with Section 2(k) (Paras 2-4). B) Trade Union - Representative Character and Minority Union - Sections 2(k), 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - A union of minority of workmen may validly raise a dismissal dispute; no requirement that it represent majority or be the employees' own union - The Tribunal erred in holding that because no other employee of the respondent belonged to the Mercantile Employees' Association the union could not raise the dispute; the union's support of the dismissed workmen sufficed to make the dispute industrial. Held that a minority union can espouse an individual dismissal dispute (Paras 5-7). C) Collective Bargaining - Group of Dismissed Workmen - Section 2(k) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Dismissed employees themselves forming a group can support each other's cause, converting individual disputes into an industrial dispute - The 18 dismissed employees were dismissed by one order dated 28 July 1961 and constituted a group of workmen whose collective support made the dispute industrial independent of union membership. Held that the group of dismissed workmen could validly raise the dispute (Paras 8). D) Industrial Adjudication - Reference Validity and Jurisdiction - Sections 10(1)(d), 12(5) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference made under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) was valid; Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate merits - Conciliation failed and the Delhi Administration referred the dispute at the instance of the Mercantile Employees' Association; the Tribunal wrongly upheld the preliminary objection. Held that the reference was valid and the Tribunal must adjudicate the merits (Paras 1, 9). E) Precedents - Distinguishing Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu - Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, (1961) 11 L.L.J. 436 - In that case union's espousal resolution was not proved, so dispute remained individual; present case had clear espousal - The Supreme Court explained and distinguished Bombay Union of Journalists, holding that failure of proof of union support there did not bar holding that the Mercantile Employees' Association's support made the present dispute industrial. Held that reliance on Bombay Union of Journalists was misplaced (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference made by Delhi Administration under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was invalid because the dispute referred was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute within Section 2(k), where only the 18 dismissed employees were members of the sponsoring union.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; Industrial Tribunal's Award dated February 9, 1962 set aside; reference made by Delhi Administration held valid; Industrial Tribunal directed to adjudicate merits of dispute.
Law Points
- Dispute connected with dismissal is connected with non-employment under Section 2(k)
- individual dismissal dispute requires espousal by union or number of workmen
- minority union can raise dispute
- no requirement that union represent majority
- dismissed employees form group supporting each other
- union of another establishment may take up cause if representative character
- reference under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) valid
