1. The petitioner in both the above Writ Petitions is the chief manager of BSNL, Trivandrum who is the management in I.D. No.35/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. In W.P.(C) No. 14625 of 2004, he is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal in CMP No.14/2003, in the said ID. When that dispute was raised before the conciliation officer, the workmen were represented by 3 unions. Later on, when the management was renamed as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., these three unions decided to function as one union named as BSNL Mazdoor Sangh. This union filed the said C.M.P. In the said I.D., seeking permission to represent the workmen in the dispute, which was opposed by the petitioner management on the ground that the union is not recognised by the management. Overruling the objection, the Tribunal allowed the petition by the order impugned in the Writ Petition. The petitioner management is challenging that order. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-union has not been recognised by the BSNL as competent to represent the employees of the BSNL and therefore they have no right to be heard in the matter. The petitioner also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3337-3338 of 2002 as also the interim order of the High Court of Andra Pradesh in a Writ Petition pending before that High Court.

2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent opposes the contentions of the petitioner. He would submit that the Industrial Disputes Act does not require that an industrial dispute should be raised by a recognised union or a majority union, or that in an industrial dispute workmen can be represented only by a recognised union or a majority union. According to them even without a union, a group of workmen themselves can join together to raise an industrial dispute, and one representative among them can represent those workmen in proceedings before the Tribunal or Labour Court.

3. I have considered the rival contentions. “Industrial dispute” is defined in S.2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act thus:

“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;”

There is nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires that a dispute, to be an industrial dispute, should be raised by a recognised union or a majority union. It would suffice if there is a controversy between the employer on the one side and the workmen on the other. What is essential is that on account of the controversy, there is potential cause for disharmony, which is likely to adversely affect industrial peace and a substantial number of workmen raises a dispute about it. In such circumstances the Industrial Disputes Act requires that in the interest of industrial peace, it should be resolved in one of the modes prescribed by the Act. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1979 Lab. I.C. 585)

4. It is not even necessary that a registered body should raise the dispute. Once it is shown that a body of workmen either acting through their union or otherwise has sponsored the dispute it becomes an industrial dispute. (See Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad v. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal & Ors. (AIR 1960 SC 1328.) In the decision of Associated Cement Companies v. Their workmen (AIR 1960 SC 777) the Supreme Court held that an industrial dispute may be raised by a group of workmen, who may not represent all or even the majority of the workmen and the award in such a dispute would be binding on all workmen, present and future. In the decision of Workmen of M/s.Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) v. M/s.Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Saugandhi) reported in AIR 1966 SC 182, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles.

(a) Notwithstanding the width of the words used by the Act