Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Novartis India Ltd. challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal on a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent, Sarabjeet S. Singh, was employed as a Medical Sales Representative from 29 August 1985 and was transferred from New Delhi to Ratlam on 26 September 1995. He did not accept the transfer, and his services were terminated on 1 November 1995. The workman filed a complaint under Section 33-A, alleging that the termination violated Section 33(2) as an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute had been referred by the State Government upon a charter of demands by the Association of Chemical Workers, which included a demand that transfers of sales and medical representatives be only with mutual consent. The management contended that the union could not espouse the cause of medical representatives as none were members in the New Delhi area. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the complaint, leading to the present petition. The High Court examined whether the workman was 'a workman concerned in such dispute' under Section 33(2). The Court noted that the workman was a member of the union and the dispute regarding transfers directly affected him. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the workman was not a member of the union at the relevant time was erroneous, as the workman had produced evidence of membership. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's award, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Workman Concerned in Dispute - Section 33(2) - Interpretation - The issue was whether a medical sales representative, whose services were terminated during pendency of an industrial dispute, could be considered a 'workman concerned in such dispute' - The Court held that the workman was a member of the union which espoused the cause of medical representatives regarding transfers, and the dispute was pending adjudication - The workman was directly concerned with the demand relating to transfers, and thus fell within the ambit of Section 33(2) - The Tribunal's finding that the workman was not a member of the union at the relevant time was erroneous (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent can be regarded as 'a workman concerned in such dispute' within the meaning of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'workman concerned in such dispute' under Section 33(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Espousal of cause by union
- Membership of union at relevant time
