A reference of an industrial dispute to a tribunal under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not invalid merely because it does not specify the disputes or the parties between whom the disputes arose.

Judgement

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 (hereinafter 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 (hereinafter called the union). A dispute arose between the hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was referred to an Industrial Tribunal on 12-10-1955, 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 25-11-1955. The hotel then applied for leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted on 13-1-1956. The hotel obtained stay of the proceedings before the Additional Tribunal from this Court on 27-2-1956. That is how this dispute which would have been otherwise decided long ago is still in in its initial stage.

2. 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 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 7-10-1955. It is also undoubted that the dispute was with respect to the terms of employment or 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 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.