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

1959 Supreme(Mad) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ganapathia pillai
The Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd., Madras
Versus
The B. & C. Mills’ Staff Union, by Secretary
Writ Appeal Nos. 49 and 50 of 1959.
Decided On : 11 September 1959

Advocates:
K. Rajah Ayyar for M/s. King and Partridge, for Appellant.
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and K.V. Sankaran, for Respondents.

Collective disputes by majority of workers.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2 (k)-Industrial dispute-Collective disputes by majority of workers if can be treated as one.

       

Rajamannar, C.J.-

These two appeals are from the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., disposing of two writ petitions, namely W.P. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1959. They both relate to an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 31st January, 1959, in Industrial Dispute No. 59 of 1958 on the file of the Tribunal. The management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Limited, filed both the petitions. In W.P. No. 54 of 1959 they prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of the Industrial Tribunal while in W.P. No. 55 of 1959 they prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the Industrial Tribunal to forbear from proceeding with the hearing in Industrial Dispute No. 69 of 1958 in pursuance of the said order. Both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge and these appeals are by the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Limited.

A question of far-reaching importance arises in these appeals on which there appears to be no direct authority. The question is this: If in an industrial establishment which employs several workmen who fall into more or less well-defined sections having regard to the nature of the work in which they are employed a dispute is raised by a few of the workmen in one of such sections and that dispute is taken up by a substantial number of persons employed in that section, whether organised as a union or not, can it be said that there is an industrial dispute within the meaning of that term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, or is it only when a majority or a substantial number of workmen employed in all the sections of the establishment take up that dispute or espouse their cause that an industrial dispute can be said to arise. The question is likely to arise in large establishments like the appellants in which thousands of workmen are employed. So far as we are aware, there is no provision of law which prohibits the existence of more than one union or association of employees in a particular industrial establishment. There is nothing to prohibit each section of the establsihment having a union the membership of which is confined to the employees in that section. Even if all the employees in an establishment are employed in the same kind of work, there may be two different unions with separate membership. There may also be several industrial establishments the employees in which are not members of any union at all. In this country as yet there is no organised system of recognised collective bargaining units in respect of each industrial establishment or sections thereof.

On 1st December, 1958, the Government of Madras made an order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, a dispute between the workmen and the management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills which had been raised by the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Staff Union, namely, “Fixation of scales of pay for Composts and Machine Operators.” By a subsequent order made on 4th February, 1959, the Government amendment the reference by describing the dispute thus:

“ Fixation of scales of pay for the Composts and Machine Operators and fitment of existing Composts and Machine Operators in the scales of pay, if any fixed.”

It may be mentioned, however, that this amendment was made after the order of the Industrial Tribunal which is the subject-matter of the writ petitions. Two main preliminary objections were taken by the management, namely

(1) that there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act because the dispute had not been taken up by a Trade Union of which the workmen to whom the dispute relates are members and there was no concerted demand for redress by the majority of workmen in the undertaking.

(2) the award made by the Industrial Tribunal on 19th January, 1957, was binding on all the workmen of the establishment including the Composts and Machine Operators, as the award remains in force for a
























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