http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE MANAGEMENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/11/1968

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA

CITATION:  1970 AIR  737            1969 SCR  (2) 913  1969 SCC  (1) 228  CITATOR INFO :  E          1970 SC1205  (6)

ACT: Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  s.  10-Requirements   for ’individual dispute’ becoming an "industrial dispute".

HEADNOTE: The  workmen were appointed by the respondent company  under the  designation of copy holders and an order in July  1959, issued by the management, expressly described them as  such. It  was  alleged  however,  that  despite  this  order,  the management, both before and after the date of the order, had always given  to the workmen the  work of  proofreaders.   A dispute  arose whether the two workmen should be treated  as proof readers and the executive committee of the Delhi Union of  Journalists,  at a meeting on December  1,  1966,  after considering  the  representation  made  to  it  by  the  two employees,  decided  to take up their  case  and  thereafter initiated conciliation  proceedings.  Eventually,  the Delhi Administration  referred  the  dispute.  to  the  Industrial Tribunal.   It  was contended by the management  before  the Tribunal that the dispute was an individual dispute and  not an   industrial  dispute  so  that  the  Tribunal   had   no jurisdiction  to adjudicate it.  The Tribunal accepted  this contention..  Evidence was led before the Tribunal  to  show that  the  working Journalists employed  by  the  respondent company numbered 131 out of whom 68 were employed in  Delhi. Out  of  these,   31  were  members of the  Delhi  Union  of Journalists  which was an outside union and which  they  had joined after July 1959.  The Tribunal’s view was that the 31 working journalists having joined the Union *after the cause of  action had arisen in July 1959,  the resolution  of  the union’s    executive   committee  would    not    constitute espousal  of  the  workmen’s  dispute  as there would be  no nexus between the dispute and the Union, and therefore,  the resolution dated December 1, 1960 did not have the effect of convening the dispute into an industrial dispute. In appeal to this Court by special leave,     HELD:  The Tribunal’s view that the dispute was  not  an industrial dispute, was incorrect.     Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, [1962]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

3  S.C.R. 893, Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.  v. Raghunath  Gopal Patwardhan, [1956] S.C.R.  956,  Newspapers Ltd.  v. State Industrial Tribunal U.P., [1957]  S.C.R.  754 and  Workmen v. M/s. Dharampal  Premchand, [1965]  3  S.C.R. 394, referred to.     The espousal by the union could not be said to be beyond time  as such espousal could only take place after  and  not before the  dispute arose or the cause of action arose.  The test of an industrial dispute is whether at the date of  the reference the dispute was taken up and supported by a union, or  by  an appreciable, number of workmen.  In  the  present case this test was clearly satisfied. [917 C]     If  the number of working journalists in the  respondent company  were to be taken as 68, membership of the union  by as many as 31 working journalists would certainly confer  on the union a representative character. Even if the number  of working journalists were to be taken as 131,  it 914 would not be unreasonable to say that 31, i.e. about 25%  of them  would,  by becoming the members of the union,  give  a representative character to the union.  At the material time there  was no union of  working journalists employed by  the respondent  company.   Therefore,  in  accordance  with  the decision  in  the Workmen v. M/s.  Dharampal  Premchand  the union  could be said to have a representative character  qua the working journalists employed in the  respondent company. The union  had taken up the cause of the two workmen by  its executive  committee  passing a resolution  and  its  office bearers  having  followed up that resolution by  taking  the matter   before  the  conciliation  officer.    Though   the grievance  of the two workmen arose in July 1959,  when  the management  declined  to accept them  as  proof-readers  the union had sponsored their cause before the date of reference as  laid down in the case of The Hindu, Bombay. ’That  being the  position it could not be  gain said  that the   dispute was  transformed  into  an  industrial  dispute  as  it  was sponsored  by  a  union  which  possessed  a  representative character vis-a-vis the working journalists in the employ of the respondent company. [919 C--G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 1967.    Appeal by special leave from the Award  dated  April  10, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in Reference I.D. No. 241 of 1961.     M.K.  Ramamurti,  Shyatnala Pappu,  Vineet   Kumar   and Madan Mohan, for the appellants.     S.V. Gupte, Lalit Bhasin, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta, for the respondent.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Shelat, J.  Two workmen, Gulab Singh and Satya Pal, were appointed  by  the respondent-company in December  1956  and February  1955  respectively under the designation  of  copy holders.  It was alleged that they were entrusted  with  the duties of proofreaders and therefore they claimed that  they should  be  treated as such.  In July  1959  the  management issued  an order in  which the two workmen were described as copy-holders.   It was alleged that in spite of  this  order the  management  continued to give the workmen the  work  of proof-readers.  A dispute whether the two workmen should  be treated  as  proof  readers having arisen  and  having  been espoused  by  the  Delhi Union  of  Journalists,  the  Delhi Administration,  by  a  notification dated  AUgust  2,  1961

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

referred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.     The  management contended that the said dispute  was  an individual  dispute and not an industrial dispute  and  that that  being so it was wrongly referred to the  Tribunal  and the  Tribunal  had no jurisdiction to  adjudicate  it.   The Tribunal  raised the preliminary issue, namely, whether  the dispute  relating to the  said two workmen was an industrial dispute.  The Tribunal held that 915 it was not an industrial dispute but was only an  individual dispute  of  the  two  workmen  and  therefore  it  had   no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said reference.  The  workmen obtained  special leave from this Court and that is how this apppeal has come up before us for disposal.     Apart  from the oral evidence, the appellants relied  on two documents, Ex. WWI/A, which purported to be the  minutes of  a  meeting  held  on November 15,  1960  of  17  working journalists  and Ex. WB/1 purporting to be the minutes of  a meeting  of  the executive committee of the Delhi  Union  of Journalists held on December 1, 1960.  The union  maintained that  these  two resolutions were proof of espousal  of  the dispute,  the  first  by an appreciable number  of  the  co- workers  of the two aggrieved workmen and the second by  the union  and  therefore  the  dispute  though  originally   an individual dispute was converted into an industrial dispute. The  Tribunal rejected  Ex. WW1/A,  namely,  the minutes  of the  alleged  meeting of the 17 working journalists  in  the employ  of  the  respondent  company  as  unreliable.    The Tribunal  next  considered whether, even assuming  that  the said  17 working journalists espoused the cause of  the  two workmen  that espousal transformed the dispute  in  question into  an  industrial dispute, in other words,  whether  they constituted  an appreciable number sufficient to change  the dispute into an industrial dispute. At the material time the Branch  office of the respondent company at Delhi  consisted in all of 388 employees, out of whom 140 were working in the Press.  The working journalists numbered 131, out of whom 63 were  outstation  correspondents and the remaining  68  were working journalists performing their duties in Delhi and New Delhi.   The Tribunal held that though the said  63  working journalists  were outstation journalists  they  nevertheless belonged  to  the staff of the  respondent  company’s  Delhi Branch,   and   therefore,  could  not  be   excluded   from consideration.   The  question which the Tribunal  posed  to itself   was  whether  17  out  of  the  said  131   working journalists  could  be  said to be  an  appreciable  number. According  to  the  Tribunal, even if  those  63  outstation correspondents were excluded and only 68 working journalists were  considered,  17  of  them  would  not  constitute   an appreciable  number sufficient to convert the  said  dispute into  an industrial dispute. It also held that mere  passing of  a resolution without anything done to follow it  up  was not sufficient to constitute espousal. There was no evidence that  after passing the said alleged resolution on  November 15,   1960  anything further was done.  On these  facts  the Tribunal did not consider the aforesaid resolution, assuming that it was passed, as constituting espousal.     As  regards  the resolution dated December 1,  1960  the minutes  of  the meeting of the executive committee  of  the Delhi   Union  of  Journalists  were  produced  before   the Tribunal.  The minutes 916 stated that the meeting after considering the representation made to it by the employees of the Indian Express decided to take  up  the  case of the two workmen  and  authorised  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

office  bearers  of  the union  to  initiate  the  necessary proceedings.  The Tribunal found that the union initiated  a fresh dispute before the Conciliation Officer and that there was no pending case initiated earlier, i.e., before December 1, 1960 by another union as alleged by the appellants  which could  have  been  continued by the union.  A  copy  of  the statement   of   claim  filed  by  the  union   before   the Conciliation Officer was also produced before the  Tribunal. There  was evidence that 31 working journalists employed  in the  respondent company had become the members of the  Delhi Union  of Journalists.  But they had joined the union  after the  said order of July 1959.  The Tribunals’ view was  that the  said  31 working journalists having  joined  the  Delhi Union of Journalists after the cause of action had arisen in July  1959,  the said resolution of  the  union’s  executive committee would not constitute espousal as there would be no nexus between the dispute and the union, and therefore,  the resolution dated December 1, 1960 did not have the effect of converting the said dispute into an industrial dispute.     Mr.  Ramamurti, for the appellants, contended  that  the resolution  dated  December 1,  1960 coupled with  the  fact that the union initiated conciliation proceedings in respect of  the  demand of the said two workmen  was  sufficient  to transform  the dispute into an industrial dispute.   On  the other hand, Mr. Gupte, appearing for the company,  contended that  a dispute which is prima facie an  individual  dispute may  assume the character of an industrial dispute if it  is taken  up or espoused by an appreciable body of the  workmen of  the establishment.  Espousal by a union is  regarded  as sufficient,  for,  that means that it is an espousal  by  an appreciable  number  of workmen in that  establishment.   If such a dispute is espoused by an outside union, the  workmen of the establishment, appreciable in number, must be members of such a union.  On these contention, the question for  our determination is whether the Delhi Union of Journalists  can be said to have espoused the dispute of the two. workmen; if so,  whether it did in time, and whether the union not being exclusively  a  union  of  the  workmen  employed  in   the* respondent  company, could espouse the said cause.     The  resolution  dated December 1, 1960  passed  by  the executive committee of the union was not disbelieved by  the Tribunal.   That,  coupled  with the  fact  that  the  union authorities initiated the conciliation proceeding, must mean that  the union had espoused the cause of the  two  workmen. The  dispute arose in July 1959 when the management  refused to treat the two work- 917 men  as proof-readers.  Thereafter the executive  committee, after  considering  a  representation  made  to  it  by  the employees  of  the  respondent company,  as  the  resolution reads,  passed  the said resolution authorising  the  office bearers  of the union to initiate proceedings in the  matter of the said dispute and the secretary accordingly  initiated proceedings  before  the  conciliation  officer.   In  these circumstances,  it  is not possible to  appreciate  how  the espousal by the union can be said to be beyond time as  such espousal  can  only  take place after  and  not  before  the dispute  arose,  or as counsel put it, the cause  of  action arose.   In  The Bombay Union of Journalists v.  The  Hindu, Bombay(x) this Court in clear terms laid down that the  test of  an  industrial  dispute is whether at the  date  of  the reference the dispute was taken up and supported by a union, or  by  an appreciable number of workmen.   There  being  no doubt  of  the union having taken up the cause  of  the  two workmen  before  the reference the first two  parts  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

question must be answered in the affirmative.     The next question is whether the cause of a workman in a particular establishment in an industry can be sponsored  by a union which is not of workmen of that establishment but is one  of  which  membership  is  open  to  workmen  of  other establishments  in  that  industry.   In  Central  Provinces Transport  Services  Ltd. v. Raghunath  Gopal  Patwardhan(2) this Court noted that decided cases in India disclosed three views  as  to the meaning of an industrial  dispute:  (1)  a dispute  between an employer and a single workman cannot  be an  industrial dispute, (2) it can be an industrial  dispute and  (3 ) it cannot per se be an industrial dispute but  may become  one  if  taken up by a trade union or  a  number  of workmen.   After discussing the scope of industrial  dispute as  defined  in sec. 2(k) of the Act it  observed  that  the preponderance  of judicial opinion was-clearly in favour  of the last of the three views and that there was  considerable reason  behind  it.   In the Newspapers Ltd.  v.  The  State Industrial  Tribunal,  U.P.(3)  the  third  respondent   was employed  as a lino typist by the appellant company.  On  an allegation  of incompetence he was dismissed  from  service. His  case  was not taken up by any union of workers  of  the appellant  company,  nor  by any of the  unions  of  workmen employed in similar or allied trades.  But the U.P.  Working Journalists Union, Lucknow, with which the third  respondent had  no concern, took the matter to the Conciliation  Board. On a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal by  the Government the legality of that reference was challenged  by the  appellant company on the ground that the  said  dispute could not be treated as an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947’ which defined by sec.  2  an industrial dispute as having the same (1)  [1962]  3  S.C.R.  893.                     (2)  [1956] S.C.R. 956. (3) [1957] S.C.R. 754. 918 meaning assigned to it in sec. 2(k) of the Central Act. This Court upheld the contention observing that the  notification referring the said dispute proceeded on an assumption that a dispute existed between the employer and "his workmen", that Tajammul  Hussain,  the  workman  concerned,  could  not  be described   as  "workmen",  nor  could  the   U.P.   Working Journalists Union be called  "his workmen" nor was there any evidence to show that a dispute had got transformed into  an industrial   dispute.   The  question  whether   the   union sponsoring  a  dispute must be the union of workmen  in  the establishment in which the workman concerned is employed  or not had not so far arisen.  It seems. such a question  arose for  the  first  time  in  the  case  of  Bombay  Union   of Journalists  v. The Hindu, Bombay(1).  The decision in  that case laid down (1) that the Industrial Disputes Act excluded its  application to an individual dispute  as  distinguished from  a dispute involving a group of workmen unless  such  a dispute  is made a common cause by a body or a  considerable section  of workmen and (2) the members of a union  who  are not  workmen  of the employer against whom  the  dispute  is sought  to  be  raised cannot by their  support  convert  an individual dispute into an industrial dispute.  Persons  who seek  to support the cause must themselves be  directly  and substantially interested in the dispute and persons who  are not the employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested.  The Court held that the dispute there  being prima facie an individual dispute it was necessary in  order to  convert it into an industrial dispute that it should  be taken  up by a union of the employees or by  an  appreciable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

number  of employees of Hindu, Bombay.  The Bombay Union  of Journalists not being a union of the employees of the Hindu, Bombay,  but  a union of all employees in  the  industry  of journalism  in  Bombay,  its support of  the  cause  of  the workman  concerned would not convert the individual  dispute into  an  industrial dispute.  The members of such  a  union cannot  be  said to be persons  substantially  and  directly interested in the dispute between the workman concerned  and his  employer,  the Hindu Bombay.  But in  Workmen  v,  M/s. Dharampal   Premchand(2)  this Court,  after  reviewing  the previous decisions, distinguished the case of Hindu,  Bombay and held that notwithstanding the width of the words used in sec.  2(k) of the Act a dispute raised  by   an   individual workman  cannot  become  an industrial  dispute  unless   it is  supported  either by  his union  or in  the  absence  of a  union by a number  of workmen, that a union  may  validly raise  a  dispute though it may be a minority union  of  the workmen  employed  in an establishment that if there was  no union of  workmen in an  establishment a group of  employees can  raise the dispute which becomes an  industrial  dispute even though it is a dispute relating to an individual (1) [19623]  S.C.R. 893.                 (1) [1965] 3 S.C.R. 394. 919 workman,   and  lastly,  that  where  the  workmen   of   an establishment have no union of their own and some or all  of them have joined a union of another establishment  belonging to the same, industry, if such a union takes up the cause of the  workman working in an establishment which has no  union of  its own, the dispute would become an industrial  dispute if  such a union can claim a representative character  in  a way  that its support would make the dispute  an  industrial dispute.     The evidence of the union secretary was that in 1959-60, 31  working  journalists  of  the  respondent  company  were members of the Delhi Union of Journalists.  It was  nobody’s case  that  these  31 members did not  continue  to  be  the members  of  that union in 1960-61 also.  If the  number  of working  journalists  in the respondent company were  to  be taken as 68 membership of the union by as many as 31 working journalists   would   certainly  confer  on  the   union   a representative  character.  Even if the  number  of  working journalists  were  to  be  taken as 131,  it  woUld  not  be unreasonable to say that 31, i.e., about 25 % of them would, by becoming the members of the union, give a  representative character to the union.  It is clear from the evidence  that at  the  material  time  there  was  no  union  of   working journalists employed by the respondent company.   Therefore, in  accordance  with  the decision in the  Workmen  v.  M/s. Dharampal  Premchand(1)  the  union can be said  to  have  a representative   character  qua  the   working   journalists employed  in the respondent company.  There can be no  doubt that the union had taken up the cause of the two workmen  by its executive committee passing the said resolution and  its office bearers having followed up that resolution by  taking the  matter  before the conciliation  officer.   Though  the grievance  of  the two workmen arose in July 1959  when  the management  declined  to accept them  as  proof-readers  the union had sponsored their cause before the date of reference as  laid down in the case of Hindu, Bombay. ’That being  the position  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  the  dispute   was transformed  into an industrial dispute as it was  sponsored by a union which possessed a representative character vis-a- vis   the  working  journalists  in  the   employ   of   the respondent company.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

   We  must, therefore, hold that the Tribunal’s view  that the  dispute  was not an industrial dispute  was  incorrect. The  award,  therefore, will have to be set  aside  and  the appeal of the workmen allowed.  There will be no order as to costs. R.K.P.S.                                              Appeal allowed. (1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 394.