http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/05/1959

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

CITATION:  1959 AIR 1214            1960 SCR  (1) 279

ACT:        Industrial  Dispute-Order  of  reference-Workmen  shown   as        represented  by  Union-Whether  formally  defective-Woykmen,        when must be individually mentioned-Industrial Disputes Act,        1947 (14 ’Of I947), SS. 2(k), 10 and 36.

HEADNOTE:        An industrial dispute between the hotel and its workmen  was        referred to an Industrial Tribunal.  The attack of the hotel        was  on  the  form  of the  order  of  reference,  the  main        contention  being that the reference was incompetent on  the        grounds  that  the Union could not be made a  party  to  the        reference  under the Industrial Disputes Act, and  that  the        reference was vague, as it did not indicate how many of  the        workers  of different categories working in the  hotel  were        involved in the dispute.        Held,  that the order of reference was  perfectly  competent        when  the parties to it and the nature of the  dispute  were        clearly specified.  The reference which was otherwise  valid        does not become incompetent simply because it was  mentioned        therein  that  the workmen will be represented by  such  and        such Union in the dispute.  The addition of the name of  the        Union  was  merely for the sake of convenience so  that  the        Tribunal  may  know  to  whom it  should  give  notice  when        proceeding  to  deal  with the reference  ;  that  does  not        preclude the workmen from being represented by another Union        or even being made parties individually.  It is  unnecessary        for the purpose of s. 10 of the Act where the dispute was of        a  general  nature relating to the terms  of  employment  or        condition  of  labour of a body of workmen  to  mention  the        names of particular workmen who might have been  responsible        for the dispute.  It was only where a dispute refers to  the        dismissal etc., of particular workmen as represented by  the        Union that it would be desirable to mention the names of the        workmen concerned.        State  of  Madras  v.  C. P.  Sarathy,  [1953]  S.C.R.  334,        referred to.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1956.        Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 25,  1955,        of  the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi,  in        Civil Writ Application No. 189-D of 1955.        280        Jai  Gopal Sethi, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley,  Rameshwar        Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.        R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1.        G.  S.  Pathak,  V.  P.  Nayar  and  Janardan  Sharma,   for        respondent No. 3.        1959.  May 13.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by        WANCHOO  J.-This  appeal comes before us  on  a  certificate        granted by the Punjab High Court under, Art. 133 (1) (a) and        (c)  of  the Constitution.  The appellant  is  the  manager,        Hotel  Imperial, New Delhi (here in after called the  hotel)        while the respondents are the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the        Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Delhi  ,  and  the  Hotel        Workers’  Union, Katra Shahanshahi , Chandni  Chowk,  Delhi.        The  main contesting respondent is respondent No.  3  (here-        inafter  called  the union).  A dispute  arose  between  the        hotel  and its workmen in October 1955.  It was referred  to        an  Industrial  Tribunal on October 12, 1955, by  the  Chief        Commissioner  of  Delhi.   The  portion  of  the  order   of        reference, relevant for our purposes, is in these terms-         Whereas  from  a  report  submitted  by  the  Director   of        Industries  and  Labour,  Delhi  under  s.  12  (4)  of  the        Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended, it appears that an        industrial  dispute  exists between the  management  of  the        Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its workmen as represented  by        the Hotel Workers’ Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni  Chowk,        Delhi;        AND whereas on a consideration of the said report the  Chief        Commissioner,  Delhi,  is satisfied that  the  said  dispute        should be referred to a tribunal        Then  follows  the  order  referring  the  dispute  to   the        Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi including the terms of        reference.  Soon after the hotel filed a writ application in        the Punjab High Court challenging the order of reference  on        a variety of grounds.  The writ application was heard by the        High  Court and dismissed on November 25, 1955.   The  hotel        then  applied for leave to appeal to this Court,  which  was        granted on        281        January   13,  1956.   The  hotel  obtained  stay   of   the        proceedings  before the Additional Industrial Tribunal  from        this  Court on February 27, 1956.  That is how this  dispute        which would have been otherwise decided long ago is still in        its initial stage.        The  main  contention on behalf of the hotel  is  -that  the        reference is incompetent and two grounds have been urged  in        support  of  it; namely, (1) the union could not be  made  a        party  to the reference under the Industrial  Disputes  Act,        1947,  (hereinafter called the Act); and (2)  the  reference        was  vague,  as  it did not indicate how  many  of  the  480        workers of thirty different categories working in the  hotel        were involved in the dispute.  We are of opinion that  there        is  no  force in these grounds of attack.  An  "  industrial        dispute  " for our purposes has been defined in s. 2 (k)  of        the-Act  as  meaning  " any dispute  or  difference  between        employers  and  workmen....... which is connected  with  the        employment  or non-employment or the terms of employment  or        with  the conditions of labour, of any person." ’Section  10        (1)  of  the Act gives power to the  appropriate  government        where it is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists  or        is  apprehended  to  refer the dispute  to  a  tribunal  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      adjudication.  It cannot be denied on the facts of this case        that  there was a dispute between the hotel and its  workmen        and it went to this length that the hotel decided to dismiss        a  large number of workmen on October 7, 1955.  It  is  also        undoubted that the dispute was With respect to the terms  of        employment  Qr  conditions of labour of  the  workmen.   The        Chief  Commissioner would therefore have power under  s.  10        (1)  of  the  Act to make a reference of the  dispute  to  a        tribunal  for adjudication.  The attack of the hotel  is  on        the form in which the reference was made and the  contention        is that the reference in this form is incompetent.  We  have        already set out the relevant part of the order of  reference        giving  the form in which it was made.  The two  parties  to        the dispute are clearly indicated, namely, (1) the  employer        which  is  the management of the hotel and (2)  the  workmen        employed in the hotel.  The objection, however, is that  the        words "as represented        36        282        by  the  Hotel Workers’ Union,  Katra  Shahanshahi,  Chandni        Chowk,  Delhi " which appear in the order of reference  make        it  incompetent, inasmuch as the union could not be  made  a        party  to  the  reference.   We are  of  opinion  that  this        objection is a mere technicality, which does not affect  the        competence of the order of reference.  The fact remains that        the dispute which was referred for adjudication was  between        the  employer, namely the management of the hotel,  and  its        employees,  which  were  mentioned  as  its  workmen.    The        addition of the words "as represented by the Hotel  Workers’        Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi " was  merely        for the sake of convenience so that the tribunal may know to        whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with  the        reference.   That however did not preclude the  workmen,  if        they  wanted to be represented by any other union, to  apply        to the tribunal for such representation or even to apply for        being  made  parties individually.  Section 36  of  the  Act        provides  that a workman who is party to a dispute shall  be        entitled  to be represented in any proceeding under the  Act        by (a) an officer of a trade union of which he is a  member,        or  (b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to  which        the  trade union of which he is a member is  affiliated;  or        (c) where the workmen is not a member of any trade union, by        an  officer  of any trade union connected with,  or  by  any        other workman employed in, the industry in which the workman        is  employed.   The  fact therefore that  in  the  order  of        reference  the  quoted  words were added  for  the  sake  of        convenience as to where the notice to the workmen should  be        sent   would   not  in  our  opinion  make   the   reference        incompetent.   The  objection further is that  even  if  the        workman  is  entitled to be represented by an officer  of  a        trade  union of which he is a member, the reference in  this        case  does not mention any officer of the trade  union,  but        mentions  the  union  itself.   This in  our  opinion  is  a        technicality  upon technicality, for the union not  being  a        living person can only be served through some officer,  such        as  its  president or secretary and it is that  officer  who        will  really represent the workmen before the  tribunal,  We        are therefore of        283        opinion that the reference which is otherwise valid does not        become  incompetent simply because it is  mentioned  therein        that the workmen will be represented by such and such  union        in  the dispute.  We may in this connection point  out  that        the  large  ’majority of references under the Act  which  we        have come across are usually in this form and the reason for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      it  is  obvious, namely, the convenience  of  informing  the        tribunal  to whom-it should send a notice on behalf  of  the        workmen, whose number is generally very large.  We therefore        reject  the  contention  that the reference  is  bad  simply        because in the order of reference the words " as represented        by  the  Hotel Workers’ Union,  Katra  Shahanshahi,  Chandni        Chowk, Delhi " have been added.        Equally,  we  see no force in the other ground  of  ,attack,        namely,  that  the  reference is bad  because  it  does  not        specify  how  many of the 480 workmen  of  thirty  different        categories were involved in the dispute. It  is    in    our        opinion unnecessary for the purposes of  s.  10  where   the        dispute is of a general nature relating to   the  terms   of        employment or conditions of labour of a body of workmen,  to        mention the names of particular workmen who might have  been        responsible  for  the dispute.  It is only where  a  dispute        refers  to  the  dismissal etc., of  particular  workmen  as        represented by the union that it may be desirable to mention        the  names  of  the workmen concerned.  In  this  case,  the        dispute  was also about workmen to whom notice of  dismissal        had  been  given  and in that connection the  names  of  the        workmen concerned were mentioned in the order of  reference.        We may in this connection refer to State of Madras v. C.  P.        Sarathy  (1), where a similar attack on the competence of  a        reference  was made on the ground of vagueness.  I  In  that        case the reference was in these terms:        "  WHEREAS  an  industrial dispute has  arisen  between  the        workers and managements of the cinema talkies in the  Madras        City in respect of certain matters;        (1)  [1953] S.C. R - 334.        284        " AND WHEREAS in the opinion of His Excellency the  Governor        of  Madras,  it is necessary to refer  the  said  industrial        dispute for adjudication;         Thereafter  followed the order of reference, which did  not        even  contain  the terms of reference.   The  order  however        indicated  that  "  the  Industrial  Tribunal  may,  in  its        discretion, settle the issues in the light of a  preliminary        enquiry  which  it may hold for the purpose  and  thereafter        adjudicate on the said industrial dispute." The Commissioner        of  Labour was requested to send copies of the order to  the        managements of cinema talkies concerned.  It was held  there        that " the reference to the Tribunal under s. 10 (1) of  the        Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be held to be  invalid        merely  because  it  did not specify  the  disputes  or  the        parties  between whom the disputes arose ". It  was  further        held that " the Government must, of course, have  sufficient        knowledge of the nature of the dispute to be satisfied  that        it  is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the  Act,        as,  for  instance,  that  it  relates  to  retrenchment  or        reinstatement.   But, beyond this no obligation can be  held        to  lie  on the Government to ascertain particulars  of  the        disputes  before  making a reference under s.  10(1)  or  to        specify them in the        order."        The  present reference as compared to the reference in  that        case cannot be called vague at all.  Here the parties to the        dispute are clearly specified, namely, (1) the management of        the hotel, and (ii) its workmen.  The nature of the  dispute        is also specified in, the terms of reference.  It was in our        opinion  entirely  unnecessary to ’mention in the  order  of        reference  as to who were the workmen who  were  responsible        for  the  dispute.  We are therefore of  opinion  that  this        attack  on the ground of vagueness also fails.  There is  no        force  in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with  costs

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

      to  respondent  No. 3. In view of the fact  that  more  than        three  years  have passed since the reference was  made,  we        trust  that  the  Additional Industrial  Tribunal  will  now        dispose of the matter as expeditiously as it can.        Appeal dismissed.        285