Case Note & Summary
This case concerned a challenge to the validity of a reference made by the Government under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal. The appellant, The Newspapers Ltd., employed a lino typist who was dismissed on grounds of incompetence. The dismissed workman, the third respondent, was not a member of any union of workers of the appellant company, and no union of workers employed in the appellant's company or in similar or allied trades took up his cause. Instead, the U.P. Working Journalists Union, with which the workman had no connection, espoused his grievance and pursued conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Board, Allahabad. Consequently, the Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, framing an issue whether the termination of the workman's services was wrongful. The appellant challenged the reference on the ground that the dispute did not constitute an 'industrial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because it was not between the employer and his workmen collectively but merely an individual dispute. The primary legal issue was whether a dispute between an employer and a single workman, without any espousal by a body of workmen or a considerable section thereof, qualifies as an industrial dispute. The appellant contended that the definition required collective character; the respondent argued that the dispute could be treated as industrial. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Act, as well as the analogous provision under the central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying on precedents such as Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan and D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee, the Court held that an individual dispute per se is not an industrial dispute. However, if a substantial body of workmen or the union representing them makes common cause with the individual workman, the dispute transforms into an industrial dispute. The Court disapproved the contrary view expressed in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen. On facts, since no union connected to the appellant's workers espoused the cause, the dispute remained individual. Consequently, the reference was invalid for absence of jurisdictional fact. The appeal was allowed, and the reference quashed.
Headnote
A) Labor Law - Industrial Dispute - Definition of 'Industrial Dispute' - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2, 3 - Dispute arose from dismissal of a lino typist by the employer; the workman's case was not espoused by any union of workers of the appellant company or of similar trades but was taken up by the U.P. Working Journalists Union. The court held that a dispute between employer and single workman does not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' unless the workmen as a body or a considerable section make common cause. The reference was invalid due to lack of jurisdictional fact. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a dispute between an employer and a single workman falls within the definition of 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the validity of the reference can be questioned on that ground.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court held that the reference was bad as the dispute was not between the employer and his workmen collectively; it was an individual dispute and thus not an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- industrial dispute
- single workman
- collective interest
- espousal
- validity of reference
- jurisdictional error
