Back
1956 Supreme(P&H) 119
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw, J.
Management The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi
Versus
Chief Commissioner, Delhi
Civil Writ No. 191 of 1956,
Decided On : DECEMBER 18, 1956
A dispute between an employer and an individual employee can become an industrial dispute if the Union takes up the cause of the employee and demands his reinstatement.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - WORKMAN - DEFINITION - DISPUTE BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The Hindustan Times Ltd. challenged the reference of an alleged industrial dispute between the management of the Company and its editorial workmen to an Industrial Tribunal under Sections 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The dispute arose from the dismissal of M. L. Madan, a Sub-Editor, who was a member of the Delhi Union of Journalists. The Company contended that Madan was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and that the dispute was not an industrial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Madan was a workman within the meaning of the Act, even though he had been dismissed before the dispute arose. The Court also held that the dispute was an industrial dispute, as it affected the interests of all the editorial workmen of the Company, most of whom were members of the Union. The Court found that the Union had taken up Madan's case and that there was a real possibility of industrial action if he was not reinstated.
Issues: 1. Whether M. L. Madan was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Whether the dispute was an industrial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of workman in the Industrial Disputes Act includes a workman discharged during an industrial dispute. 2. A dispute between an employer and an individual employee can become an industrial dispute if the Union takes up the cause of the employee and demands his reinstatement.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
Falshaw, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Company, The Hindustan Times Ltd. of New Delhi, challenging the reference by the Delhi State Government under Sections 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 of an alleged industrial dispute between the management of the Company and its editorial workmen to an Industrial Tribunal.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. M. L. Madan, respondent No. 3 entered the employment of the Company as a Sub-Editor in January, 1950. The terms of his employment are contained in annexure B to the petition providing inter alia that he should be paid Rs. 300 per mensem in the grade of Rs. 200-20-400 and that his appointment should be for three years, terminable thereafter on two months notice by either side. Apparently in December 1955 he was found guilty of some error in his work as regards one of the front page headlines which resulted in the press having to be stopped after 300 copies of the following days issue had been printed, and the correction resulted in a delay in the issuing of the paper, and on the 10th of December he was informed by the News Editor that he . need not report for duty again until he received further instructions. The respondent. apparently objected and tried to get this order set aside but finally he was dismissed from the Companys service by the Managing Editor on the 23rd of December.
3. M. L. Madan was apparently a founder member and a member of the executive committee of the Delhi Union of Journalists; and although it was the case of the Company that he had been dismissed on account of inefficiency, it being alleged that the mistake which resulted in his dismissal was not by any means the first of such mistakes which he had made it is the case of M. L. Madan and also the Union that the real cause of his dismissal was that he had incurred the displeasure of the management of the Company by his activities in connection with the Union, or in other words that his dismissal was an act of victimisation. In these circumstances the Union immediately took up his case and proceedings were Instituted without delay by the Union on his behalf before the Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act. Both parties presented their cases before this officer on various dates in December 1955 and January 1956, but the Conciliation Officer was unable to bring about any kind of reconciliation between the parties. The net result was that Dr. B. R. Seth. Director of Industries and Labour under the Delhi State Government, drew up his report on the 24th of January, 1956, in which, after summarising the cases advanced On behalf of both parties to the dispute, he expressed the opinion that an industrial dispute existed which required reference to an Industrial Tribunal and proposed that the terms of reference should he "Whether the termination of service of Shri M. L. Madan, Sub-Editor is wrongful and to what relief he is entitled." in pursuance of his recommendation the reference was made by an order dared the 14th of February, 1956. The present petition challenging the validity of the reference was apparently filed in this Court on the 21st of May, 1956.
4. One point on which the validity of the reference is challenged may conveniently be dealt with first. This is the argument advanced on be-half of the Company that only a dispute between workmen and their employers could be referred to an Industrial Tribunal and M. L. Madan was not a workman within the meaning of the defini-tion contained in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, even though that definition had been extended by the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955 which made Act 14 of 1947 applicable to working journalists. The definition in Section 2 (s) reads -
" Workman means any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for
