1. Retrenchment of employees — Violation of first come last go principle — Reinstatement order under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Subsequent writ petitions and appeals. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th May, 1960
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Newspapers Ltd.; Allahabad, Appellant
Versus
U. P. State Industrial Tribunal and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 348 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Y. Kumar, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, S.P.SINHA, Y.Kumar
B.R.L.Iyengar, S.P.SINHA, Y.Kumar
A dispute is an industrial dispute if sponsored by a body of workmen, regardless of the body's registration status. Additionally, factual arguments not raised in lower courts cannot be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage in the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 3, 4 and 8 - Industrial dispute - Sponsoring of a workman's case by a body of workmen - Whether registration of such body is necessary - Once it is shown that a body of workmen, either acting through their union or otherwise, had sponsored a workman's case, it becomes an industrial dispute; registration of the sponsoring body is not a prerequisite for the validity of the reference. (Para 4)
(B) Retrenchment - Principle of "first come last go" - Question of fact - Argument regarding separate departments not raised before the industrial tribunal or the High Court - Cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An employer closed an unprofitable publication and retrenched certain employees. The industrial tribunal found that the employer failed to follow the "first come last go" principle, as junior employees were retained while senior employees were retrenched. The tribunal ordered the reinstatement of the retrenched employees. The employer challenged this, arguing that the dispute was an individual one and not an industrial dispute because the sponsoring association was unregistered.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the dispute was sponsored by an association of workmen and thus constituted an industrial dispute. It further held that the registration of the sponsoring body is irrelevant. The argument regarding separate departments was rejected as it was a question of fact not raised in previous proceedings.
Issues: Whether the dispute was an industrial dispute despite the sponsoring body being unregistered, and whether the "first come last go" principle was applicable across different departments.
Ratio Decidendi: A dispute is classified as an industrial dispute if it is sponsored by a body of workmen, regardless of whether that body is registered. Furthermore, factual contentions not raised in the original proceedings or the High Court cannot be introduced for the first time in the Supreme Court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the dispute was individual or industrial — Validity of sponsorship by an unregistered body — Applicability of retrenchment principles across distinct departments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Sponsorship by a body of workmen, regardless of registration, constitutes an industrial dispute; new factual pleas cannot be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. A workman's case sponsored by a body of workmen, whether registered or unregistered, qualifies as an industrial dispute. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 6 )
6. Does a body sponsoring a workman's case need to be registered for the matter to be considered an industrial dispute?
No. Once it is shown that a body of workmen, whether acting through their union or otherwise, has sponsored a workman's case, it becomes an industrial dispute. Registration of the body is not necessary. (Para 4 )
7. Can a party raise a new question of fact for the first time during an appeal or special leave proceeding?
No. Questions of fact that were not argued or considered in the original proceedings or lower courts cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. (Para 6 )
8. What constitutes an industrial dispute when a single workman is affected?
A dispute regarding a single workman becomes an industrial dispute if the cause of the workman has been sponsored by a body of workmen, acting through their union or otherwise. (Para 3 , 4 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The appellant, Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad, publishes three newspapers viz., the Leader, the Bharat and the Sangam. The Sangam, was an unprofitable publication, and due to financial stringency caused by the loss incurred on it the appellant had to close its publication. In consequence the appellant retrenched thereof its employees who are respondents 3 to 5. On behalf of the said employees an industrial dispute was raised and it was referred by the State Government for adjudication under its notification issued on January 15, 1953, under Ss. 3, 4 and 8 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of Cl. 10 of the Government Order of March 15, 1951. The industrial tribunal held that the appellant was not guilty of victimisation, but nevertheless it found that in retrenching respondents 3 to 5 the appellant had not followed the industrial principle of first come last go . According to the tribunal respondents 6 to 8 who were junior to respondents 3 to 5 should have been first retrenched; and since no satisfactory explanation was given as to why respondents 3 to 5 were retrenched instead of respondents 6 to 8 the tribunal directed the appellant to reinstate respondents 3 to 5. Against the award thus made by the tribunal the appellant preferred an appeal but the said appeal was dismissed and the order for reinstatement was confirmed. Meanwhile the services of respondents 6 to 8 were terminated by the appellant.
2. It appears that pending the proceedings before the appellate tribunal respondents 6 to 8 moved the Allahabad High Court by a writ petition, No. 243 of 1953. By this petition they challenged the validity of the award passed by the industrial tribunal directing the reinstatement of respondents 3 to 5. Subsequently, the appellant itself filed before the said High Court its own writ petition No. 1421 of 1954. Both the writ petitions were heard and were dismissed by Chaturvedi J. Respondents 6 to 8 preferred an appeal against the dismissal of their petition; but the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the said respondents were not affected by the tribunal s order. The other Appeal No. 36 of 1955 preferred by the appellant against the dismissal of its writ petition was considered on the merits and was ultimately dismissed. It is against this latter decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
3. It is unfortunate that in the paper book prepared in this case none of the documents relating to the appellant s Writ Petition No. 1421 of 1954 has been printed. It appears that documents in regard to the companion writ petition filed by respondents 6 to 8 have through mistake been printed. That being so, it was very difficult for Mr. S. P. Sinha, for the appellant, to make any point by reference to the record of the proceedings. He, however, contended that the courts below were in error in rejecting the appellants argument that the dispute in regard to the retrenchment of respondents 3 to 5 was not an industrial dispute. According to him it was an individual dispute which had not been sponsored either by any union or even by a body of workmen. On this point there is a concurrent finding of both the courts against the appellant. Chaturvedi J. has recorded his conclusion that on the evidence adduced before him he was satisfied that there was an association known as Leader Press Karmachari Sangh and that the cause of respondents 3 to 5 had been sponsored by the said association. The same finding has been confirmed by the appellate court.
4. Then it was urged that the association which sponsored the case of respondents 3 to 5 was an unregistered body and that made the reference invalid. Both the courts have held, and rightly, that it is not necessary that a registered body should sponsor a workman s case to make it an industrial dispute. Once it is shown that a body of workmen, either acting through their union or otherwise had sponsored a workman s case it becomes
