Trade unions retain the right to represent individual employees in dismissal cases under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, despite the introduction of Section 2-A, which provides wider remedies for individual disputes.

ORDER :

(R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed by the General Secretary of a Trade Union challenging the order passed by the first respondent on 13.09.2024 and a consequential order dated 16.12.2024 wherein he had returned a petition filed under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that only an application under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act is maintainable.

2. One office bearer of the petitioner union, namely the treasurer and two frontline union activists were dismissed by the third respondent management. The union passed a resolution on 18.10.2023 to take up the cause of all three dismissed employees and to raise an industrial dispute.

3. Based upon the said resolution, the petitioner union presented an application under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the first respondent on 10.09.2024. The said application was returned by the first respondent on 13.09.2024 with a direction to file a fresh application under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act . The union represented the said application to the first respondent requesting him to take cognizance of the industrial dispute. Again it was returned with the same endorsement. These two orders are put to challenge in the present writ petition.

4. According to the writ petitioner, the availability of the remedy under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act to an individual worker is not a bar for invoking the remedy under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act . When the petitioner union is ready to espouse the cause of a dismissed employee, the first respondent cannot refuse to entertain such an application and pressurise the union and the dismissed employees to avail the remedy under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act . According to him, the power of the first respondent under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act is still retained even after introduction of Section 2 -A in the year 1965. Hence, he prayed for allowed the writ petition.

5.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that three employees have been dismissed from service by the third respondent management. In cases of dismissal, the individual workers are always at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 2 -A of the Act. There is no necessity whatsoever to file an application under Section 2 (k) of the Act. The first respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 2 (k) of the Act. After introduction of Section 2 -A , even the individual disputes should be considered to be an industrial disputes in cases of dismissal, retrenchment etc. Therefore, even without the assistance of the trade union, the dismissed employees can approach the Labour Court. Only in the interest of the dismissed employees, such an order of return has been passed by the first respondent. Hence, she prayed for sustaining the said order.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material records.

7. Before introduction of Section 2 -A , whenever there was an industrial dispute, the same has to be espoused only by a trade union and it should be dispute between the employers and employers or employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which are connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour. Unless the cause of an individual workman is espoused by a trade union, such a dispute will not be considered to be an industrial dispute. Only to alleviate the difficulty faced by some workman, whose cause was not espoused by the union or by a majority of the workman or the