SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 59

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd March, 1960.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Porbandar, Appellants
Versus
Their Workmen and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Mr. R. J. Kolah, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajnder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellants; Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, M.C.SETALVAD, P.L.VOHRA, R.J.KOLAG, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY

A minority union can give notice to terminate an award under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - S. 19(6) - Termination of Award - Notice by Minority Union - Validity.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between the appellant company and its workmen, represented by two unions, the Cement Kamdar Mandal and the Cement Employees Union. The Cement Kamdar Mandal, representing a minority of the workmen, gave notice to terminate the award governing the terms of employment. The appellant challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that only a majority union could terminate the award under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the expression "any party bound by the award" in S. 19(6) refers to all workmen bound by the award, but notice to terminate the award can be given not by an individual workman but by a group of workmen acting collectively either through their union or otherwise, and it is not necessary that such a group or the union through which it acts should represent the majority of workmen bound by the award.

Issues: Whether a minority union can give notice to terminate an award under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that imposing a majority rule for terminating awards would seriously prejudice the interests of employees, as many unions would not be able to claim a majority of members on their rolls, and in their present stage of organization, very few cases would a majority of workmen be able to meet, decide, and act together otherwise than through their unions. The Court also noted that an industrial dispute can be raised by a minority of workmen or a minority union, and it would be illogical to deny them the right to terminate an award passed on a reference made at their instance.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Cement Kamdar Mandal, as a minority union, had the right to terminate the award under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : Can a registered trade union representing a minority of workmen governed by an award give notice to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award under S. 19(6) of the Industrial Dispute Act 14 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act)? That is the short question which arises for decision in the present appeal. In answering the said question it would be necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and to ascertain the true meaning and effect of S. 19(6) on its fair and reasonable construction. The controversy thus raised undoubtedly lies within a narrow compass; but before addressing ourselves to the merits of the dispute, it is necessary to state the material facts which led to the present proceedings.

2. The present appeal has been brought before this Court by the Associated Cement Companies Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) against their workmen (hereinafter called the respondents), and it arises from an industrial dispute between them which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal for the State of Saurashtra by the Saurashtra Government under S. 10(1) of the Act. Several items of demand presented by the respondents constituted the subject-matter of the reference. When the tribunal began its proceedings the appellant raised four preliminary objections against the competence of the reference itself. The tribunal heard parties on these preliminary objections, and by its interlocutory judgment delivered on March 10, 1958, it has found against the appellant on all the points. In the result it set down the reference for further hearing on the merits. It is against this interlocutory judgment and order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave. Out of the four points urged by the appellant as preliminary objections we are concerned with only one in the present appeal, and that relates to the incompetence of the reference on the ground that the award in question by which the parties were bound has not been duly terminated under S. 19(6) of the Act inasmuch as the union which purported to terminate the said award represents only a minority of workmen bound by it.

3. The circumstances under which this contention was raised must now be stated in some detail. The appellant is a limited company and owns and runs a number of cement factories spread out in different States in India as well as in Pakistan. It has a factory at Porbandar in Saurashtra. The factory is known as the Porbandar Cement Works. An industrial dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents in 1949 and it was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal on March 22, 1949. This reference ended in an award made on September 13, 1949. Thereafter the said award was terminated by the appellant; and on disputes arising between it and the respondents another reference was made to the same tribunal for adjudication of the said disputes. A second award was made on July 24, 1951, by which the earlier award with slight modifications was ordered to continue in operation. In the proceedings in respect of both the references the appellant s workmen were represented by their Union called Kamdar Mandal, Cement Works, Probandar. It appears that the registration of the said union was cancelled on July 2, 1954, and that led to the formation of two unions of the appellant s workmen, the Cement Kamdar Mandal which was registered on July 7, 1954, and the Cement Employees Union which was registered on September 18, 1954.

4. The Cement Kamdar Mandal gave notice to the appellant s manager on September 23, 1954, purporting to terminate the first award pronounced on September 13, 1949, at the expiration of two months notice from the date of the said communication. By another letter written on December 20, 1954, the same union purported to terminate the second award pronounced on July 24, 1951, in a similar manner. On November 22, 1954, the said Mandal presented fresh demands most of which were cove












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top