Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Bind Basni Prasad and Beg, JJ.
GANESH DAS RAM GOPAL - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Appln. 851 Of 1951
Decided On : 04/15/1952
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Whether a dispute between an employer and a dismissed workman is an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Interpretation of the definition of "industrial dispute" - Scope and object of the Act - Role of trade unions in representing workmen - Distinction between individual and collective disputes.
Fact of the Case:
Ramdeo, a peon employed by the applicant, was dismissed from service. The General Engineering Workers Union, a registered trade union, took up Ramdeo's cause and applied to the Regional Conciliation Officer for conciliation under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was referred to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer for adjudication. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer, contending that there was no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute between the applicant and Ramdeo was an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court interpreted the definition of "industrial dispute" broadly to include disputes between employers and dismissed workmen, and disputes taken up by trade unions on behalf of workmen.
Issues: 1. Whether a dispute between an employer and a dismissed workman is an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the scope and object of the Act include the resolution of individual disputes between employers and workmen? 3. Whether trade unions can represent workmen in industrial disputes and bring matters to the attention of conciliation officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the definition of "industrial dispute" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wide enough to include disputes between employers and dismissed workmen. The court relied on the Federal Court's decision in Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, which held that the words "employment" and "non-employment" in the definition are of the widest amplitude and cover all matters that require settlement between workmen and employers. 2. The court held that the object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to avoid disputes between employers and workmen, to provide a machinery for the settlement of such disputes, and to promote harmonious relationships between them. The court noted that the Act provides for the resolution of both collective and individual disputes, and that trade unions play an important role in representing workmen and bringing matters to the attention of conciliation officers. 3. The court held that trade unions can represent workmen in industrial disputes and bring matters to the attention of conciliation officers. The court noted that the definition of "workman" in the Act includes a workman discharged during an industrial dispute, and that trade unions are recognized as legitimate representatives of workmen under the Trade Unions Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's petition, holding that the dispute between the applicant and Ramdeo was an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Conciliation Officer had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a proprietor of an industrial establishment directed against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Regional Conciliation officer, Lucknow, and one Ramdeo who was once an employee of the applicant.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: The applicant carries on business of manufacturing iron and steel material and other finished products and owns a workshop in Hazratganj, Lucknow, and in that connection employed a number of workmen. Ramdeo was appointed a peon in the Stores department on or about 28-7-1948. It is alleged that on 10-1-1951 Ramdeo absented himself from duty, after half time. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 11-1-1951. Another charge-sheet of misconduct was served upon him on 18-1-1951. Ramdeo took leave on medical grounds on 19-1-1951. On 19-1-1951 the applicant sought for permission from the Regional conciliation Officer to dismiss Ramdeo. This was necessary because another dispute between the applicant and another employee was pending before the Regional Conciliation Officer and according to the law during the pendency of such an industrial dispute he could not dismiss an employee without the permission of the Regional Conciliation Officer. Ramdeo joined duty on 31-4-1951 but he was suspended from service the same day. As the Regional Conciliation officer did not pass any orders on the applicants petition dated 19-1-1951 another application was made to him on 1-2-1951 asking for permission to dismiss Ramdeo. It so happened that sometime in March, 1951, the case between the applicant and another employee on account of which it had become necessary to ask for permission of the Regional Conciliation Officer for dismissal of Ramdeo was disposed of. It was then no longer necessary according to the law for the applicant to take the Regional Conciliation Officers permission for Ramdeos dismissal. On 27-3-1951 Ramdeo was dismissed.
( 3 ) RAMDEOs cause was taken up by the General Engineering Workers Union, a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The President of that union applied to the Regional conciliation Officer, Lucknow, who is the Chairman of the Conciliation Board, under para. 4 of the Order framed by the State Government under Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (g) of Sections 3 and 8, u. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XXVIII [28] of 1947) by the Notification No. 615 (LL)/xviii-7 (LL)/-1951, dated 15-3-1951, for the settlement of the industrial disputes by conciliation. Acting under para. 5 of the said Order the Conciliation Officer tried to bring about a settlement, but he failed. Under Sub-para. (3) of para. 6 he submitted a report to the State government and the Labour Commissioner setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about an amicable settlement thereof. On the receipt of that report the State Government referred the dispute under para. 10 of the aforesaid Order for adjudication to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Lucknow, by its order dated 11-7-1951. The question which was formulated by the State Government under this Order is as follows : "whether the services of Sri Ramdeo have been wrongfully terminated? If so, to what relief is he entitled ?"
( 4 ) WHEN the case came up for hearing before the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer the applicant raised a preliminary objection that there was no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of that expression as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such the Conciliation officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. The Conciliation Officer did not refer the matter to the Government and then the applicant made a petition praying for the stay of proceedings to enable him to bring an order of stay from this Court under its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case was postponed by the Conciliation Offi
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
