Whether the grievance of an individual workman is liable to be adjudicated in a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the question to be decided in this case. Section 10(1)(c) reads as follows:-

"10. Reference of dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. - (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing -

(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication."

The industrial dispute which is liable to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, is defined under Section 2(k) of the Act reads as follows: -

"2(k) "Industrial dispute" means 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."

The dispute should be (1) between the employees and employers/ (2) between employers and workmen/ (3) between workmen and workmen/ (4) and the dispute should be regarding (a) employment or non-employment/ (b) the terms of employment/ (c) the conditions of labour of any person. It is fairly clear that the industrial dispute contemplated under Section 2(k) is a collective industrial dispute. Any grievance of a workman in an industry has normally a collective dimension and if that is resolved through the collective effort, neither the management nor other workmen need be dragged to unnecessary litigation. Otherwise, it would lead to the situation of every workman either opting for or being forced to getting his grievance redressed in an adjudication. That would certainly affect the industrial peace. Individual grievances unless sponsored through the Union or when there is no Union through the medium of an appreciable number of workmen in the establishment, cannot be adjudicated as an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10(1)(c). The only exception provided is under Section 2A which reads as follows:-

"2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute."

Where there is a question of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman, it is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2A. That is a situation where the workman may not get the assistance of the Union or appreciable number of workmen and hence the exception. All other industrial disputes can be adjudicated only collectively. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under the definition of the expression "workman" as appearing under Section 2(s) has excluded an individual grievance from the scope of Section 2(k). Section 2(s) reads as follows:

2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, ....."

The Supreme Court of India as clearly as in 1961 had occasion to consider the issue in Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, 1961 (II) LLJ 436, wherein