http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: THE NEWSPAPERS LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1957

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.

CITATION:  1957 AIR  532            1957 SCR  754

ACT: Industrial Dispute, Meaning of-Dispute between  employer and a  single  workman -  Whether  industrial  dipute-Government making  reference  on the assumption that a  dispute  exists between  the, employer and his workmen-Whether  validity  of the reference can be questioned -U . P. Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947  (U.P.  XXVIII  of  1947),  SS.  2,  3-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV Of 1947), S. 2 (k).

HEADNOTE: A dispute between an employer and a single workman does  not fall  within the definition of " industrial dispute "  under the  U.P.  industrial Disputes Act, 1947.   But  though  the applicability of the Act to an individual dispute as opposed to  a dispute involving a group of workmen is  excluded,  if the  workmen  as a body or a consicrerable section  of  them make  common cause with the individual workman then  such  a dispute would be an industrial dispute. 755 Central  Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v Raghunath  Gopal Patwardhan,  (1956) S. C. R. 956 and D. N. Banerji v. P.  R. Mukherjee, (1953) S.C.R. 302, referred to. Swadeshi  Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen,  (1953)  I L.L.J. 757, in so far as it decided that a dispute raised by an,  individual  workman is within  an  industrial  dispute, disapproved. Case-law reviewed. The  third respondent was employed as a lino typist  by  the appellant company but on allegations 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 connection took the matter  to  the Conciliation   Board,  Allahabad,  and  -   ultimately   the Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal by  a notification  in which one of the points  for  determination referred  was  as  to- whether the  services  of  the  third respondent  were  wrongfully terminated by  the  management. The  legality  of  the  reference  was  challenged  by   the appellant  and  the  question was raised  as  to  whether  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

dispute  between  an  employer and a  single  workman  falls within the definition of "industrial dispute" under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held, that the reference was bad because the dispute was not between the employer on the one hand and his workmen on  the other,  nor  could  the U.P. Working  journalists  Union  be called  "  his workmen ", within the meaning of  the  U.  P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though the making of a reference by the Government under the Act  is  the  exercise  of  its  administrative  powers,  an aggrieved  party  can  question  the  jurisdiction  of   the Industrial  Tribunal to show that what was referred was  not an industrial dispute. State  of  Madras  v.  C. P.  Sarathy,  (1953)  S.C.R.  334, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1956. Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated Septem.  ber  22, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 8 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and decree dated January 6, 1954  of  the said High Court in  Civil  Miscellaneous  Writ Petition No. 651 of 1953. S.   P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. G.   G. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for respondent No. 2. 756 1957.  March 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-The ground on which the appellant company seeks  to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is  that no  industrial  ’dispute existed within the meaning  of  the expression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XXVIII  of  1947)  (hereinafter called the  U.P.  Act)  and consequently  the U.P. Government had no power to  make  the reference in question.  I Industrial Dispute’ is defined  in s. 2 of the U.P. Act as having the same meaning assigned  to it  as in s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947  (here- inafter termed the Central Act).  There this expression  has been defined in s. 2 (k) to mean : " any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or  between  employers and workmen, or between  workmen  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.  " The  controversy between the parties arose in the  following circumstances: Tajammul  Hussain, respondent No. 3 was employed as  a  lino typist by the appellant company.  He was dismissed on May 8, 1952,  on, allegations of incompetence under r. 12  (ii)  of the  Standing  Orders  of the  appellant  company.   It  was alleged that the dismissal of Respondent No. 3 was  welcomed by  his  co-workers and other workmen in the employ  of  the appellant company and they made no grievance of it, nor  did they espouse his cause. The  case of respondent No. 3 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 respondent  No.  3 had no connection  whatsoever,  took  the matter  to the Conciliation Board,  Allahabad.   Ultimately, the  U.P.  Government  made a reference  to  the  Industrial Tribunal  on  June 3, 1953, by notification;  the  prefatory words of which are: 757

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

"  Whereas an industrial dispute in respect of  the  matters hereinafter  specified exists between the concern  known  as Newspapers  Ltd., Allahabad and its workmen; and whereas  in the opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the maintenance   of   public  order  and  I   for   maintaining employment. One of the questions referred was:- "’  Whether  the  services  of  Sri  Tajammul  Hussain  Lino Operator were wrongfully terminated by the Management On  February  13,  1953, the State  Industrial  Tribunal  at Allahabad decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and  ordered his reinstatement " without break of continuity of service " and  also  ordered the payment of his wages for  the  period during  which he "remained dismissed".  An appeal was  taken by  the appellant company to the Labour Appellate  Tribunal, who  by  its ,order dated February 24,  1953,  affirmed  the order  of  the Tribunal with costs.  The  appellant  company then moved a petition in the Allahabad High Court under Art. 226  of the Constitution but this was dismissed by  Bhargava J.  on  January 6, 1954, and a Special appeal  against  this judgment was also dismissed.  The appellant company has come up  in appeal with a certificate under Art. 133 (1)  (c)  of the Constitution. The  controversy  which  arises in this case  is  whether  a dispute  between  an  employer and a  single  workman  falls within  the definition of I industrial dispute’ as  used  in the  U.P. Act.  In order to resolve this controversy, it  is necessary  to  refer to the scheme of the U.P. Act  and  the relevant  rules  made thereunder.  The preamble of  the  Act runs: "  to provide for powers to prevent strikes and  look- outs,  and  for the settlement of  industrial  disputes  and other  incidental  matters ". Section 3 of the  Act  confers certain  powers on the State Government for the  purpose  of prevention of strikes, lock-outs, etc.- The portion of  this section  relevant  for the purpose of this appeal  reads  as follows: If  in the opinion of the State Government, it is  necessary or  expedient  so to do for securing the  public  safety  or convenience, or the maintenance of public 758 order or supplies and services essential to the life of  the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision- (c)  for appointing industrial courts; (d)  for  referring any industrial dispute for  conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order (g)  for  any  incidental or  supplementary  matters,  which appear  to the State Government necessary or  expedient  for the purpose of the order; " Under s. 23 of the Act, the State Government can make  rules consistent with the Act for giving effect to the  provisions of the Act. Under  clauses (b), (c), (d) and (g) of s. 3 and under s.  8 of  the  U.P. Act, rules governing Conciliation  Boards  and Industrial   Tribunals   in   U.P.   were   promulgated   by Notification No. 615 (LL) XVIII-7 (LL)-1951, dated  Lucknow, March 15, 1951.  Rule 4 deals with the reference of disputes to Conciliation Boards.  The relevant portions of this  rule are: ,,Any workman or an employer or a registered association  or trade  union  of  employers or  registered  trade  union  of workmen  or  any federation of such  associations  or  trade unions or where no registered trade union of workmen  exists in  any particular concern or industry, the  representatives not more than 5 in number of the workmen in that concern  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

the  industry, duly elected in this behalf by a majority  of the  workmen  employed in that concern or industry,  as  the case  may  be,  at a meeting held for the  purpose,  may  by application  in writing move a Conciliation Officer  of  the area   for   settlement  of  any   industrial   dispute   by conciliation.   The  application  shall  clearly  state  the industrial dispute or disputes.  " Rule 5 deals with proceedings and the power of inclusion  of other undertakings.  The proviso to this rule is: "  Provided  that if the Board of its own motion  or  on  an application made to it, is of the opinion that any  question involved in any such dispute or matter affects or is  likely to  affect  more  than one workman in the  same  concern  or industry or business or more 759 than   one  concern  in  the  same  industry  or   business, constituted  within  the jurisdiction  of  the  Conciliation Board, it shall include in its proceedings relating to  such dispute  or  order every such workman or  concern  or  where there is a registered trade union covering the, majority  of such concerns of workmen, such trade unions." Rules  7  to 11-A deal with Industrial Tribunals.   Rule  10 gives  power  to the Government to make a reference  of  any dispute to the Industrial Tribunal either on its own  motion or  after considering the Report of the  Conciliation  Board made under r. 6. Rule 15(1) which deals with the representation of parties to the dispute provides: " The parties may in their discretion be represented  before a Board or Tribunal or an Adjudicator- (1)  In the case of a workman by- (a)  an officer of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b)  an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in sub-clause (a) is affiliated ; (c)  Where  the  workman is not a member of  any  registered trade  union,  by an officer of any registered  trade  union connected with, or by any other workman employed in the same industry  or  business, if so authorised in writing  by  the workman." The  language of section 36(1) of the Central Act is  almost identical. Rule  27  prohibits strikes and look-outs; and r.  28  gives finality and conclusiveness to the orders made or directions given. The  use  of  the  word  ’workmen’  in  the  plural  in  the definition of industrial dispute’ does not by itself exclude the  applicability  of  the Act  to  an  individual  dispute because under a. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act subject............. (2)  words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa," 760 But in order to get its true import it is necessary to  view the  enactment in retrospect, the reasons-for  enacting  it, the evils it was to end and the objects it was to  subserve. The  Act  has therefore to be viewed as a      whole and its intention determined by construing all the constituent parts of  the Act together and not by taking detached sections  or to  take one word here and another there.  Exposition  "  ex visceribus  actus " is applicable.  Lincoln  College’s  Case (1). So  construed the provisions of the U.P. Act show  that  the machinery  of  the Act has been devised with the  object  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

maintaining  industrial peace so as to prevent  interference with  public safety or public order or with the  maintenance of  supplies  and  services essential to  the  life  of  the community  or  of  employment.   The Act  is  based  on  the necessity  of achieving collective amity between labour  and capital   by   means   of   conciliation,   mediation    and adjudication.   The object of the Act is the  prevention  of industrial  strife, strikes and lock-outs and the  promotion of  industrial  peace  and  not to take  the  place  of  the ordinary  tribunals  of  the land  for  the  enforcement  of contracts  between  an employer and an  individual  workman. Thus viewed the provisions of the Act lead to the conclusion that  its applicability to an individual dispute as  opposed to  dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded  unless it  acquires  the general characteristics of  an  industrial dispute,  viz.,  the  workmen as a body  or  a  considerable section  of  them  make common  cause  with  the  individual workman  and thus create conditions contemplated by s. 3  of the  U.P. Act which is the foundation of State  Governmental action  under that Act.  The other provisions  which  follow that  section only subserve the carrying out of the  objects of the Acts specified therein. The use of the word workman in the singular in rr. 4, 5  and 15  forms the basis of the argument for the inclusion of  an individual  dispute  in the expression  industrial  dispute. But  this  suffers from more infirmities than one.   Rule  4 authorises a workman to (1)  3 Co. Rep. 58: 76 E. R. 764. 761 apply  to  a Conciliation Officer for the settlement  of  an industrial dispute.  The meaning sought to be given to  this word is inconsistent with the language of the latter part of that rule;  or where no registered trade union of workmen exists in any concern or industry, the representatives not more than 5  in number of the workmen............ duly elected." The  first  proviso to r. 5 is no surer foundation  for  the argument  because in the context it can only be  interpreted to mean that, should there be an industrial dispute then all workmen who may individually be the cause of the dispute  or are to be affected by its decision should get notices of the proceedings.   Similarly,  r.  15  only  provides  for   the representation of " a workman " even if he is only one by an officer  of a trade union or other person mentioned  in  the rule.   Besides, s. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act  as  to the interpretation of the singular and the plural  consider- ably reduces the efficacy of the argument, which  altogether loses its force in view of r. 26 which is as follows : "  During  the pendency of any  conciliation  proceeding  or proceedings before the Tribunal or an Adjudicator in respect of  any  dispute  an employer shall not  (a)  alter  to  the prejudice  of  the  workmen concerned in  such  dispute  the conditions of service applicable to them immediately  before the  commencement  of such proceedings or (b)  discharge  or punish,   whether  such  punishment  is  by   dismissal   or otherwise,  any workman concerned in such dispute save  with the express permission in writing of a Conciliation  Officer of  the area concerned irrespective of the fact whether  the dispute  is  pending before a Board or the  Tribunal  or  an Adjudicator." The  use of the words " workmen" and " workman in the  above rule  is  indicative  of  the intention  of  the  Act  being applicable  to  collective disputes and  not  to  individual ones, and this is fortified by the finality and the  binding effect  to awards by r. 28 and more speciall.v by a.  18  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the Central Act which makes 98 762 awards  binding  not  only on  the  individuals  present  or represented   but  on  all  the  workmen  employed  in   the establishment and even on future entrants. Another objection to reading these rules in the manner above suggested  is that it would be tantamount to  enlarging  the scope of the expression ’industrial dispute’ and the  powers conferred  on the State Government under s. 3 of the  U.  P. Act.  The executive cannot under the power of framing  rules and regulations clothe itself with powers which the  Statute itself  does  not give and which are inconsistent  with  the interpretation  put on the expression ’industrial  dispute’. The  cardinal rule in regard to promulgation of bye-laws  or making  rules  is  that  they must  be  legi  fidei  rationi consona, and therefore all regulations which are contrary or repugnant  to  statutes  under  which  they  are  made   are ineffective.   If  the expression I industrial  dispute’  as ordinarily  understood  and,  construed  conveys  a  dispute between  an employer on the one hand and the workmen  acting collectively  on  the other, then the  definition  of  those words  cannot be widened by a statutory rule  or  regulation promulgated under the Statute or by Executive fiat. I  The notification in the present case was under  s.  3(c), (d)  and  (g)  and  under  s. 8  which  deal  with  (c)  the appointment   of  industrial  Courts,  (d)   referring   any industrial  disputes  and (g)  incidental  or  supplementary matters.  The Executive may in the exercise of these  powers make  such  regulations which are necessary but  under  that garb it cannot extend the definition of the term  industrial disputes, nor is this extended meaning necessary to subserve the objects of the Act. I  In our opinion therefore rules- 4, 5 and 15 of the  Rules cannot  be  a valid foundation for sustaining  the  argument raised that an individual dispute was within the  definition of ’industrial dispute’.  Ordinarily, an award of a tribunal binds  or affects the rights of parties to  the  proceedings but   awards   of   Industrial   Tribunals   have   extended implications  and may affect the rights of all workmen of  a concern  or undertaking end even the future entrants.   This doctrine of 763 representation  which enlarges the meaning of  ’parties’  in the U.P. & Central Acts is an essential idea associated with industrial disputes and support-, collectiveness as  opposed to  individualism.   See  Latham  C.  J.  in  Metal   Trades Employers Association v. Amalgamated Engineering Union(1). Then  there is the prohibition under r. 26 of the  U.P.  Act and  s.  33  of  the  Central  Act  against  any  change  in conditions of service during the pendency of the proceedings the  object of which is to ensure discipline and  industrial truce during that period which also supports the basic  idea of collectiveness in ’industrial disputes’. In  Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.  V.  Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (2), this Court observed that decided cases in  India  disclose  three  views  as  to  the  meaning   of ’industrial dispute’ (i)  a  dispute  between an employer and  a  single  workman cannot be an ’industrial dispute’; (ii) it can be an industrial dispute; and (iii)     it can not per se be an industrial dispute but may  become one if taken up by a trade union or a number  of workmen. This  Court  discussed the scope of  industrial  dispute  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

defined in s. 2(k), of the Central Act, and after  referring to the conflict of judicial opinion as to its  applicability to  the case of a dispute between an employer and  a  single workman further observed: of  the last of the three views stated above, and  there  is considerable  reason  behind it.  Notwithstanding  that  the language  of  s.  2(k) is wide enough  to  cover  a  dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that- the machinery  provided  therein  should be set  in  motion,  to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen  as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a  workman  was  not  intended  to  be  the  subject  of  an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the union or a number of workmen." (1) [1935] 54 C.L.R. 387. (2) [1956] S.C.R. 956. 764 Although the question did not directly arise, this Court  in D  . N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and  others(1)  discussed the  meaning of the expression ’industrial dispute’ and  was of the opinion that it "conveys the meaning to the  ordinary mind  that  the dispute must be such as would  affect  large groups   of  workmen  and  employers  ranged   on   opposite sides......  But  at  the same time, having  regard  to  the modern  conditions of society where capital an  labour  have organised themselves into groups for the purpose of fighting their disputes and settling them on the basis of the  theory that  in  union is strength, and collective  bargaining  has come  to stay, a single employee’s. case might develop  into an industrial dispute, when as often happens, it is taken up by  the trade union of which he is a member and there  is  a concerted demand by the employees for redress". This  view is in consonance with the basic  idea  underlying modern industrial legislation.  The interpretation given  to the corresponding phrase "trade dispute" in English law  and "industrial  dispute"  in Australian Law also  accords  with this view and in the absence of an express provision to  the contrary or necessary intendment there is no reason to  give a  different interpretation to the expression in the  Indian Statute. According  to English decisions an individual dispute  of  a workman is not included in ’trade dispute’ which corresponds to  ’Industrial Dispute’ in the Indian Act.  In the  English Trade Disputes Act of 1906 and 1919 as also in Reg. 58-AA of the Defence (General) Regulation, 1939, ’trade dispute’  was defined in language very similar to ’industrial dispute’  in the Indian Statute.  Dealing with a trade dispute, Lord Shaw in Conway v, Wade (2) said,: "  But  I  cannot see my way to hold  that  "trade  dispute" necessarily  includes  accordingly every case of  person  al difference  between any one workman and one or more  of  his fellows.  It is true that after a, certain stage even such a dispute, although originally grounded, (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 302, 310. (2)  [1909] A.C, 596, 520. 765 it may be, upon personal animosity, may come to be a subject in  which sides are taken, and may develop into a  situation of  a  general aspect containing the  characteristics  of  a trade dispute; but until it reaches that stage I cannot hold that a trade dispute necessarily exists." Lord  Wright  observed  in  National  Association  of  Local Government Officers v. Bolton Corporation (1) " I think the same may be said of the Industrial Courts  Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

and of reg. 58-AA, in both of which the word ’trade’ is used in  the  very wide connotation which it bears in  the  modem legislation   dealing   with   conditions   of   employment, particularly in relation to matters of collective bargaining and the like.." Ex  parte  Keable  Press  Ltd.(2)  was  an  instance  of  an individual   dispute  developing  into  a  ’trade   dispute’ because.  of  the  strike by a union to  enforce  the  rein- statement  of  dismissed workman.  That was  how  this  term (trade dispute) was interpreted by the Court of Appeal in R. v.  National  Arbitration  Tribunal(3)  after  taking   into consideration the definition of the word ’dispute’. In Australian cases also, without specific reference to  any definition of the phrase the courts have excluded individual disputes from the scope of industrial disputes.  In Jumbunna Coal Mine v. Victorian Coal Miners Association (4), Griffths C.J. observed: " An industrial dispute exists where a considerable  number- of employees engaged in some branch of industry make  common cause  in  demanding  from or refusing  to  their  employers (whether  one  or  more) some change in  the  conditions  of employment         which        is         denied         to them................................................... " Similarly  in  Federated  Saw  Mills  &  Co.  Employees   of Australasia  v.  James  Moore & Son  Proprietory  Ltd.  (5), Griffths  C.J.  gave the characteristics  of  an  industrial dispute as follows: "  It  is necessary at the outset to  consider  the  meaning which the term ’industrial dispute’ conveyed (1)  [1943] A.C. 166, 185. (2)  [1943] 2 All E.R. 633. (3)  [1951] 2 All E.R. 828. (4)  [1908] 6 C.L.R. 309, 332.              (5) [1909] 8 C.L.R. 465, 487, 488. 766 in 1900 to the, minds of persons conversant with the English language..................... "The   word   ’industrial  denotes   two   qualities   which distinguish  them  from ordinary  private  disputes  between individuals,  namely  (2) that on one side at least  of  the dispute the disputants are a body of men acting collectively and  not individually." Isaacs J. in George Hudson  Ltd.  v. Australian Timber Workers’ Union(1) stated: "The   very   nature   of  an   ’industrial   dispute’,   as distinguished  from an individual dispute, is to obtain  new industrisl   conditions,   not  merely  for   the   specific individuals  then working It is &’battle by  the  claimants, not for themselves alone and not as against the  respondents alone, but by the claimants so far. as they represent  their class According  to Griffths C.J. "The term- "industrial  dispute" connotes  a,  real and substantial  difference  having  some element  of  persistency, and likely, if  not  adjusted,  to endanger  the  industrial  peace of  the  community".   Vide Federated Saw Mills Case(2) at p. 488.  The same meaning was attached  to the expression by Latham C.J. in Metal  Traders Employers Association v. Amwlgamated Engineering Union(3) at p. 403: "Industrial disputes are essentially group contests-there is always an industrial group on at least one side.  A claim of an individual employee against his employer is not in itself an  industrial  dispute  We shall now refer  to  the  Indian decisions which bear on this question. Rajamannar  C.J.  in Kandan Textile Ltd. v.  The  Industrial Tribunal,,Madras and another(4) held that the definition  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

industrial dispute is wide enough to cover a dispute between an  employer  and  an individual  workman  but  taking  into consideration s. 18 of the Central Act he was of the opinion that such an extended definition cannot be given to it in s. 2(k)  of the Central Act.  Mack J. agreed with the  decision of Rajamannar C. J. but he said that the case of an English language., (1)  (1923] 32 C.L.R. 413, 441. (2)  [1909] 8 C.L.R. 465, 487, 488. (3)  [1935] 54 C.L.R. 387, 403. (4)  A.I.R. 1951 Madras 616. 767 individual  workman if taken up by the worker’s union  makes such  a  dispute an industrial dispute.  In that  case  1  1 items   of  difference  were  referred  to  the   Industrial Tribunal.,  One  of the items in dispute  was  the  wrongful removal of a workman, Sundaram by name.  In the’, High Court an  objection was taken to the legality of the award on  the ground that no industrial dispute existed and that there was no  material before the Government on the basis of which  it could make a reference.  It was held that the dispute as  to a  single  workman was not an  industrial  dispute.   Kandan Textile  Ltd.  case (1) was followed  in  United  Commercial Bank,  Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Labour, Madras (2)  which was   a   case  under  s.  41  of  the  Madras   Shops   and Establishments  Act  and  the right of appeal  given  to  an individual  employee  against  the  order  of  the  employer dispensing with his services under s. 41(2) of Madras  Shops and Establishments Act was challenged on the ground that  it had been taken away by the Central Act.  It was held that an individual  worker  had the right  to  appeal.   Vishwanatha Sastri  J.  in his judgment referred with  approval  to  the distinction  made  between  an  individual  dispute  and  an industrial  dispute  in Kandan Textile  Ltd.  v.  Industrial Tribunal, Madras (supra). The  second  view  that  such a  dispute  falls  within  the definition of the word "industrial dispute" is supported  by a decision of a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal- Swadeshi  Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen  (3)  There the question was mainly decided on the- basis of s. 33-A  of the  Central Act (introduced in 1950) which gives the  right to an individual workman dismissed or dealt with contrary to s.  33 of the Act during an industrial dispute to raise  the matter before a tribunal.  The introduction of s. 33-A would not  alter  the  construction to be  placed  on  the  phrase ’industrial dispute’.  On the contrary it supports the  view that an individual dispute is not comprised in that  phrase. In  view of what has been said above, we are of the  opinion that in so far as that case lay& down (3)  [1953] 1 L.L.J. 757. 768 that  a  dispute raised by an individual workman as  to  his personal  grievance  is  within an  industrial  dispute,  it cannot be said to have been correctly decided. The cases which support the third view are the following: J.   Chowdhury v. M. C. Bannerjee (1) Was a case in which  a lino operator was removed from service on the ground of  his negligence and arrears of work.  The matter was referred  to the   Industrial  Tribunal  under  the  Central  Act.    The Management  moved  the  High Court under  Art.  226  of  the Constitution and s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act and it was held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain  the matter  as  on  a perusal of the  various  sections  of  the Central  Act  including  ss. 10 and 18  the  dispute  of  an individual  workman was not covered by the  term  industrial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

dispute.’ In Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. a  suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of wages  on the basis of an award of an Industrial Tribunal and one  -of the issues raised was’ whether an ’individual dispute’  fell within  ’industrial dispute’.  Following the judgment in  I. Chowdhury  v. M. C. Bannerjee (1), Bose J. held that it  did not. Another case in which this view was held is N. 1.  Assurance Co. v. C. G. I. Tribunal (3).  There the Government referred the question of dismissal of an employee of an Assurance Co. and  it  was not proved that his case was taken  up  by  the employees  association.   The  same  view  was  adopted   in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Industrial Tribunal (4). In  Lakshmi  Talkies, Madras v. Munuswami  and  Others  (5), Balakrishna Ayyar J. held that an industrial dispute’ arises where  a  case  of an individual workman is  espoused  by  a union.   The same view was taken in Lynus & Co.  v.  Hemanta Kumar Samanta (6). The  view  taken  in  these cases  is  in  accord  with  the interpretation  we  have put on the  expression  ’Industrial dispute’ as defined in the U. P. Act or the Central Act. (1)  [1935] 55 C.W.N. 256. (2)  [1953] A?  C.W.N. tog. (3) [l953] I.L.R.  32 Patna 181 (4)  I.L.R. [1952] Trav.Co. 432. (5)  [1055] L.L.J. 477. ’(6) [1956] 2 L.L.J. 89, 769 Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they  take a contrary view, i.e., an individual  dispute  is comprised  in an ’industrial dispute’ must unless  there  is something peculiar- as to facts, be In  spite of the fact that the making of a reference by  the Government under the Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers, that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was  referred was  not  an ’industrial dispute’ at all and  therefore  the jurisdiction  of the Industrial Tribunal to make  the  award can  be questioned, even though the factual existence  of  a dispute may not be subject to a party’s challenge.  State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy (1), It may also be noted that the notification issued by the  U. P. Government on January 3, 1953, already quoted proceeds on the  assumption that a dispute exists between the  "employer and  his workmen".  The points of dispute in the  reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only  Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator.  The words used  in the first part of the notification show that the  Government was  labouring under the misapprehension that  this  dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workmen  on the  other,  which, in fact it was  not.   Tajammul  Hussain could not be termed work-, men (in the plural) nor could the U. P. Working Journalists Union be called "his workmen"  nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had  got transformed  into  an industrial dispute.  The  very  basis, therefore,  of the reference was bad and must be held to  be so. We would, therefore, allow this appeal with costs. Appeal allowed. (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 334, 347. 99 770

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11