Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
The Bombay Union of Journalists and others, Appellants
Versus
The Hindu Bombay and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Ramaswamy, Mrs. E. Udayarathnam and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. R. Ramamurthy Iyer and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1

Advocates:
E.UDAYARATHNAM, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.RAMAMURTHI IYER, RAMASWAMY SHASTRY, S.S.SHUKLA

An individual dispute may become an industrial dispute if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen and there is considerable reason behind it.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE - SUPPORT BY UNION OR APPRECIABLE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES - SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT - EFFECT - SUPPORT BY UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF DIFFERENT EMPLOYER - EFFECT - SUPPORT BY INDIAN FEDERATION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS AFTER REFERENCE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:

Salivateeswaran, a correspondent of "The Hindu", Bombay, was terminated from his employment. He filed an application under S. 17 of the Bombay Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955, claiming Rs. 1,57,172-8-0 under diverse heads alleging that termination of his employment was wrongful and that it amounted to retrenchment. The Bombay Union of Journalists, a Union of all persons who depend for their livelihood upon Journalism in Bombay, supported the claim of Salivateeswaran. The State of Bombay referred the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:

The Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the Government of Bombay. The Tribunal held that the dispute was merely an individual dispute between Salivateeswaran and "The Hindu" Bombay which had not been supported by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu" Bombay.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute between Salivateeswaran and "The Hindu" Bombay was an industrial dispute within the meaning of S. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the support of the Bombay Union of Journalists, a Union of employees of different employer, was sufficient to convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute? 3. Whether the subsequent withdrawal of support by Venkateswaran and Tiwari, the only other employees of "The Hindu" Bombay, affected the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal? 4. Whether the support by the Indian Federation of Working Journalists after the reference was sufficient to convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An individual dispute may become an industrial dispute if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen and there is considerable reason behind it. 2. The support of the Bombay Union of Journalists, a Union of employees of different employer, was not sufficient to convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute. 3. The subsequent withdrawal of support by Venkateswaran and Tiwari did not affect the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 4. The support by the Indian Federation of Working Journalists after the reference was not sufficient to convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

SHAH, J.: This is an appeal with special leave against an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. By its award the Tribunal rejected the reference holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the Government of Bombay.

2. Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) who claimed to be a full time employee of the first respondent --"The Hindu" Bombay -- Addressed a letter on February 15, 1956, to the Managing Editor of "The Hindu" - a daily newspaper published at Madras-- intimating that he was proceeding to Europe on March 1,1956. On February 16, 1956, the Assistant Editor of "The Hindu" informed Salivateeswaran that even though the latter was not a full time employee of "The Hindu", they could "not allow frequent breaks in the performance of his duties and that they would have to relieve him of his duties as correspondent from March 1, 1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him. Salivateeswaran having persisted in carrying out his project, by letter dated February 29, 1956, he was informed by the Management that be ceased to be a correspondent of "The Hindu" from March 1, 1956. After returning from his tour of Europe, Salivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinstatement and called upon the management of "The Hindu" to treat the period of his absence out of India as leave. The management of "The Hindu" having declined to accede to that demand Salivateeswaran filed an application under S. 17 of the Bombay Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955, claiming Rs. 1,57,172-8-0 under diverse heads alleging that termination of his employment was wrongful and that it amounted to retrenchment. The management of "The Hindu" denied that Salivateeswaran was their employee and submitted that the Authority under Act 45 of 1955 had no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact. The Authority rejected this contention holding that he was competent to decide disputed questions arising in the case before him. The management of "The Hindu" presented a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a direction quashing the order of the Authority, contending that S. 17 of the Act did not empower the Authority to act as a forum for adjudicating disputed claims. This Court upheld (See Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. v. Salivateeswaran, 1959 SCR 1 the plea of the Management of "The Hindu", but dismissed the petition holding that no fundamental right of the Management was infringed by the order passed by the Authority. Acting on the view expressed by this Court the Authority declined to proceed with the application, because disputed questions of fact fell to be determined in the petition before him.

3. "The Hindu" had an office in Bombay since 1937. At the material time, The Hindu" had besides Salivateeswaran only nine employees seven serving on the administrative side and two journalists -- Venkateswaran and Tiwari Salivateeswaran and Venkateswaran were members of the Bombay Union of Journalists: Tiwari, the other journalist employee, was not a member of the Union. The Bombay Union of Journalists is a Trade Union, the membership of which is open to all persons who depend for their livelihood upon the practice of the profession of journalism, including press photographers, artists, cartoonists and freelance writers. This Union is admittedly not a Union of employees of "The Hindu", Bombay, but it is a Union of all persons who depend for their livelihood upon Journalism in Bombay. By its resolution dated August 16, 1956, the Bombay Union of Journalists supported the claim of Salivateeswaran in the application filed by him under S. 17 of Act 45 of 1955.

4. Between April 9, 1958 and April 15,1958, four letters were addressed by 225 members of the Union (amongst whom Venkateswaran was not included) informing the Union that the termination of employment of Salivateeswaran raised "questions of principle and it was necessary that there should be a proper adj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(SC) 327

An individual dispute may become an industrial dispute if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen and there is considerable reason behind it.

Cases Referred (3)