Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from an industrial dispute between the management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi, and its workmen, represented by the Hotel Workers' Union. In October 1955, a dispute arose over terms of employment and conditions of labour, and the management decided to dismiss a large number of workmen on 7 October 1955. On 12 October 1955, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi referred the dispute to the Additional Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after receiving a report from the Director of Industries and Labour under Section 12(4) of the Act. The order of reference stated that an industrial dispute existed between the management of Hotel Imperial and its workmen "as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi" and included the terms of reference. The management filed a writ application in the Punjab High Court challenging the order of reference on the grounds that the union could not be made a party to the reference and that the reference was vague because it did not indicate how many of the 480 workers in thirty different categories were involved. The High Court dismissed the writ application on 25 November 1955. The management obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on 13 January 1956 and a stay of proceedings before the tribunal on 27 February 1956. The Supreme Court heard the appeal. The appellant argued that the reference was incompetent because the union was named as a party and not an officer of the union, and the reference was vague. The respondents contended that the reference clearly specified the parties and the nature of the dispute, and the mention of the union was only for notice convenience. The Supreme Court held that the order of reference was perfectly competent when the parties to it and the nature of the dispute were clearly specified. The addition of the words showing the workmen as represented by the union was merely for convenience so that the tribunal would know to whom to give notice; it did not preclude workmen from being represented by another union or being made parties individually. Section 36 of the Act provided for representation of workmen by officers of trade unions. The court also held that for a general dispute about terms of employment or conditions of labour of a body of workmen, it was unnecessary to mention the names of particular workmen; only where a dispute referred to dismissal of particular workmen was it desirable to name them. The court relied on State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334, which held that a reference cannot be invalid merely because it did not specify disputes or parties. The court dismissed the appeal with costs to respondent No. 3 and directed the Additional Industrial Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Reference by Appropriate Government - Competence of Reference - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(k), 10(1) - The order of reference specified the parties as the management of the hotel and its workmen and the nature of the dispute relating to terms of employment and conditions of labour - Court held that the reference was competent as the parties and nature were clearly indicated and the government had power to refer an existing industrial dispute - Held that the reference did not become incompetent merely because workmen were shown as represented by a union (Paras not mentioned) B) Industrial Disputes Act - Representation of Workmen - Union Mention in Reference - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 36 - The reference order added the words "as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union" for convenience of notice to the tribunal - Court held that this addition was only a technicality and did not preclude workmen from being represented by another union or from being made parties individually; the union itself could be served through its officer - Held that the reference was not bad on this ground (Paras not mentioned) C) Industrial Disputes Act - Vagueness in Reference - Necessity to Identify Workmen - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1) - The appellant contended that the reference was vague as it did not mention how many of 480 workers in 30 categories were involved - Court held that for a general dispute about terms of employment or conditions of labour, it is unnecessary to mention names of particular workmen; only where the dispute refers to dismissal etc. of particular workmen is it desirable to name them - In this case names of dismissed workmen were mentioned - Held that the vagueness challenge failed (Paras not mentioned) D) Precedent - Nature of Government's Obligation in Reference - State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1) - Court relied on State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334, holding that a reference cannot be invalid merely because it did not specify disputes or parties; the government must have sufficient knowledge of the nature of the dispute but need not ascertain particulars or specify them in the order - Held that the present reference was far more specific than the reference upheld in that case (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was incompetent because it mentioned the workmen as represented by a trade union; whether the reference was invalid for vagueness because it did not indicate how many of the 480 workers of thirty different categories were involved in the dispute
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent No. 3 (Hotel Workers' Union). The order of reference was held competent and not vague. The Supreme Court directed the Additional Industrial Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- An industrial dispute can be referred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 if the appropriate government is satisfied that a dispute exists or is apprehended
- a reference is valid if parties and nature of dispute are clearly specified
- addition of words showing workmen as represented by a union is merely for notice convenience and does not invalidate the reference
- Section 36 of the Act entitles a workman to be represented by an officer of a trade union of which he is a member
- a federation officer
- or an officer of any trade union connected with the industry
- a general dispute about terms of employment or conditions of labour does not require names of individual workmen
- only disputes about dismissal etc. of particular workmen make it desirable to name them
- the government need not ascertain or specify particulars of disputes beyond their nature
- as held in State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy
