1. Dismissal of multiple employees — Dispute raised by a registered Trade Union — Reference under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Workmen of M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Saugandhi), Appellants
Versus
M/s. Dharam Pal Chand (Saugandhi), Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 532 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General of India, (M/s. S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, S.MURTHY, S.V.Gupta, SUKUMAR GHOSH
B.P.MAHESHVARI, S.MURTHY, S.V.Gupta, SUKUMAR GHOSH
A dispute regarding the dismissal of multiple employees, sponsored by a Trade Union of the same industry, constitutes an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if the Union is not exclusively for that specific establishment.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(k) and 10(1) - Definition of "industrial dispute" - Dismissal of employees - Whether a dispute regarding the dismissal of multiple employees, sponsored by a Trade Union of the same industry but not exclusively of the establishment, constitutes an industrial dispute - A dispute between an employer and a single employee generally requires sponsorship by a Union or a group of workmen to be treated as an industrial dispute to prevent frivolous claims (Paras 3, 4) - Industrial adjudication must be pragmatic and avoid rigid formulas (Para 12) - A Union of workmen in the same industry may be competent to raise a dispute for employees in an establishment without its own Union, provided the Union has a representative character (Para 12) - Where a large number of employees are dismissed on the same day, they themselves may constitute a group justified in supporting each other's cause (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
An employer dismissed 18 out of 45 employees. The dismissed employees were members of a registered Trade Union. The Union raised the dispute before the conciliation officer, and subsequently, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held the reference invalid, treating the matter as an individual dispute rather than an industrial dispute, as the sponsoring Union was not exclusively composed of employees of that specific establishment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in rejecting the reference on the ground that the dispute was an individual one. The dismissal of a large number of employees on the same day, supported by a Union of the same industry, satisfies the requirements of an industrial dispute.
Issues: Whether the dispute concerning the dismissal of 18 employees, sponsored by a Trade Union of the same industry, constitutes an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while an individual's dispute typically requires Union or group sponsorship to become an "industrial dispute," this requirement is based on pragmatic policy to avoid frivolous claims. In cases where multiple employees are dismissed simultaneously, they can be considered a group. Furthermore, a Union of the same industry can validly sponsor such a dispute even if it is not the exclusive Union of that establishment, provided it maintains a representative character.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - An "industrial dispute" includes any dispute connected with employment or non-employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour between employers and workmen (!) . - A dispute arising from dismissal of workmen is an industrial dispute if it relates to employment or non-employment of the workmen (!) . - For a dispute to be validly referred under Section 10(1), it must be supported by the Union of the workmen or, in the absence of a Union, by a number of workmen collectively (!) (!) . - The support must be such that the disputing employees act collectively, and a group of dismissed employees can jointly support a reference (!) (!) . - The interpretation of "industrial dispute" should be pragmatic and flexible, not subject to rigid tests, considering the purpose of industrial adjudication (!) (!) .
What is an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
When can a dispute involving dismissed employees be validly referred under Section 10(1) of the Act?
What is the requirement for Union or group support in converting an individual dispute into an industrial dispute?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a dispute involving dismissed employees sponsored by a Trade Union constitutes an industrial dispute or a mere individual dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act. (Para 1 , 6 )
3. Industrial adjudication requires a pragmatic approach; a dispute involving multiple employees dismissed simultaneously or sponsored by a representative industry Union constitutes an industrial dispute. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. An individual dispute becomes an industrial dispute if sponsored by a Union or a group of workmen, including a minority Union or a representative industry Union. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed — Preliminary finding of the Tribunal reversed — Matter remanded for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 14 )
6. When does a dispute between a single employee and an employer become an industrial dispute under Section 2(k)?
A dispute between a single employee and an employer is treated as an industrial dispute if it is sponsored or espoused by the Union to which the employee belongs or by a number of fellow workmen. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
7. Can a minority Union or a Union not exclusively consisting of employees of a specific establishment validly raise an industrial dispute?
Yes. A minority Union can raise a dispute. Additionally, if an establishment has no Union, a Union of the same industry can raise the dispute if an appreciable number of employees joined it before their dismissal. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Does the simultaneous dismissal of multiple employees qualify the dispute as an industrial dispute?
Yes, if a large number of employees are dismissed by the same order on the same day, they are considered a group of workmen justified in supporting each other's cause, converting the matter into an industrial dispute. (Para 11 , 13 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question of law which arises for our decision in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Delhi Administration referring the dispute between the appellants, the workmen of M/s. Dharampal Premchand Saugandhi and the respondent, the employer M/s. Dharampal Premchand Saugandhi, Delhi, was valid. The order of reference has been passed by the Delhi Administration under Sections 10 (1) (d) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). When the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, took up this matter for hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the reference was invalid inasmuch as the dispute referred to the Tribunal by the impugned order of reference is not an industrial dispute, but is merely an individual dispute which cannot be the subject-matter of a valid reference under S. 10 (1) of the Act. This contention has been upheld by the Tribunal, with the result that the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute referred to it. It is against this order that the appellants have come to this Court by special leave. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sukumar Ghose contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not sound, and that raises the question as to whether the dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication in the present case can be said to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of S. 2 (k) of the Act.
2. The fact which it is necessary to state for the purpose of dealing with this point are very few and they are not in dispute. The respondent is a firm which carries on business as perfumers and tobacconists in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On the 28th July, 1961, the respondent passed the impugned order dismissing the service of its 18 employees. On that date, the respondent had in its employment 45 employees. It appears that on the 16th July 1961, the 18 employees who were dismissed by the respondent had become members of the Mercantile Employees Association which is a registered Trade Union in Delhi. On the 29th July 1961, the said Association took up the cause of the dismissed employees and carried the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi. The conciliation proceedings, however, failed, and at the instance of the Association the present reference was made on the 6th September 1961. It is in the light of these facts that we have to decide whether the dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication is an industrial dispute within the meaning of S.2 (k) of the Act or not.
3. Section 2 (k) defines an "industrial dispute" as meaning 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. This definition shows that before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an industrial dispute, it must be shown that it is connected with employment or non-employment of that person. This condition is satisfied in the present case, because the dispute is in relation to the dismissal of 18 workmen, and in that sense, it does relate either to their employment or non-employment. The question, however, still remains whether it is a dispute between employers and workmen. Literally construed, this definition may take within its sweep a dispute between a single workman and his employer, because the plural, in the context, will include the singular. Besides, in the present case, the dispute is in fact between 18 workmen on the one hand, and their employer on the other, and that satisfies the requirement imposed by the fact that the word "workmen" in the context is used in the plural. But the decisions of this Court have consistently taken the view that in order that a dispute between a single employee and his employer should be validly referred under S. 10 of the Act, it i
