Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. D. Bhargava, J.
J.K.COTTON MANUFACTURERS LTD., KANPUR - Appellant
Versus
U.P.GOVERNMENT - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 2471 Of 1957
Decided On : 02/10/1960
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Individual Dispute - Reference to Adjudicator - Jurisdiction - Temporary Employment - Termination of Services - Agreement - Modification by Industrial Tribunal - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd., employed Sri Rama Shankar Gupta on a temporary basis for specific periods. After the expiry of each period, his services were terminated and renewed on fresh applications. The Kanpur Mechanical and Technical Workers Union, of which Gupta was not a member, espoused his cause and applied for conciliation proceedings. The State Government referred the dispute to an adjudicator, who directed Gupta's reinstatement. The petitioner challenged the reference, award, and enforcement order, arguing that it was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute. It found that the union which espoused Gupta's cause was not of the same trade and industry as the petitioner's concern and that Gupta was not a member of that union on the date his services were terminated. The court also held that the agreement between the petitioner and Gupta for temporary employment was valid and could not be modified by the adjudicator.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute was an individual dispute or an industrial dispute. 2. Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to modify the agreement between the petitioner and Gupta for temporary employment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An industrial dispute is one between an employer and his workmen, and it must involve a group of workmen or a considerable section of them. An individual dispute cannot be converted into an industrial dispute by being espoused by a union of a different trade or industry. 2. An industrial tribunal cannot ignore an existing agreement between the parties and modify it without any rhyme or reason. In the present case, the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to modify the agreement for temporary employment, as there were no reasons given for doing so.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of reference of the State Government, the award of the adjudicator, and the order of the State Government enforcing the award.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Messrs J. K. Cotton manufacturers Ltd.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a joint stock company registered under the Companies Act, having its head office at Kanpur and running the business of manufacture and sale of yarn and cloth. The petitioner employs a strength of about 1700 workmen for this purpose. They are divided into different categories. The opposite parties to this petition are the U. P. Government; the additional Regional Conciliation Officer; the Workmen of the J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. , the Kanpur Mechanical and Technical Workers Union, Kanpur, and Sri Rama Shankar Gupta, one o the workers, who had been employed on a temporary basis by the petitioner. He is opposite party No. 5. He was employed on 1-1-53 as a temporary clerk. The engagement was for a specific period on the expiry of which, under the terms of the contract, he was automatically to leave the petitioners company. With an interval of short periods this temporary contract was renewed from time to time. Rama Shankar Gupta continued to work in the petitioners Company in different capacities. His appointment was made on his application which was couched in the following terms:--
"i desire to work in your Mills. The Rules and: Regulations of the Company as well as the standing Orders have been fully explained to me. I will abide by those Rules so long as I remain in the employment. I fully understand that I am being employed as a temporary workman and will be given work only when work is available for me. It has been clearly explained to me that the period of my employment will be from 24-8-53 to 23-11-53 only. On 23-11-53 or even before at any time when the Company does not require any services it can terminate my services without any notice or compensation in lieu thereof. I will have no objection whatsoever if my services are terminated. I have fully understood the above facts and I gladly accept them. If the management likes it can extend the period of my temporary employment. "
After his appointment he signed on the application and he made the endorsement: "noted and agreed". That employment was extended on 23-11-53 for a further period of two months, i. e. 22-1-54. Then again Sri Gupta made the endorsement noted and agreed". It was further extended upto 15-2-54, which was the last term of the appointment of Sri Gupta. Thereafter, it appears that his services were terminated. He was again appointed by means of another application submitted by Sri R. S. Gupta, dated 22-2-54. This application is couched in very similar terms to the one in which the previous application had been made. In this application he has mentioned that it had been clearly explained to him that the period of his employment was to be from 23-2-54 to 22-5 54. He had agreed to the appointment on the above terms. This appointment was again extended by two months on 21-5-54 upto 21-7-54 and by two subsequent extensions it was extended upto 30-12-55. When his services were terminated, no dispute whatsoever according to the petition was raised either by him, or by any worker of the petitioners concern, or by any union of which the worker of the petitioners concern were members.
( 3 ) ON 23-1-56 the Vice President of the Kanpur Mechanical and Technical Workers Union kanpur applied to the Regional Conciliation. Officer, Kanpur for taking conciliation proceedings. Under Clauses (b), (c) (d) and (g) of Section 3 and Sections 6-A and 8 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act the Government had issued an order, No. U-464 (LL)/ XXXVI-B-257 (LL)-1954 dated 14-7-54, by means of which machineries had been created for conciliation of industrial disputes. Clause 11 of the said notification reads as follows:--
"where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time either of its own motion or after considering the report of the Conciliation board, made under Sub-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
