1957 (3) TMI 55 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a dispute between an employer and a single workman constitutes an 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The validity of the reference made by the U.P. Government to the Industrial Tribunal.
3. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the matter.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a dispute between an employer and a single workman constitutes an 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The primary contention of the appellant company was that no 'industrial dispute' existed within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 'Industrial Dispute' is defined in section 2(k) of the Central Act as "any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person."

The court examined the scheme of the U.P. Act and the relevant rules, noting that the Act aims to prevent strikes and lockouts and to settle industrial disputes. The court emphasized that the machinery of the Act is designed to maintain industrial peace and is not intended to replace ordinary tribunals for enforcing contracts between an employer and an individual workman.

The court concluded that the Act's applicability to an individual dispute is excluded unless it acquires the general characteristics of an industrial dispute, i.e., the workmen as a body or a significant section of them make common cause with the individual workman. The court referred to the doctrine of "ex visceribus actus" and noted that the Act should be construed as a whole to determine its intention.

2. The validity of the reference made by the U.P. Government to the Industrial Tribunal:

The U.P. Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on June 3, 1953, stating that an industrial dispute existed between Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad, and its workmen. The court found that the dismissal of Tajammul Hussain was not taken up by any union of workers of the appellant company or any unions of workmen in similar trades. Instead, the U.P. Working Journalists Union, with which Hussain had no connection, took the matter to the Conciliation Board.

The court held that the use of the word 'workmen' in the plural in the definition of 'industrial dispute' does not exclude the applicability of the Act to an individual dispute. However, the court emphasized that the Act's intention is to address collective disputes rather than individual ones. The court found that the reference made by the U.P. Government was based on a misapprehension that the dispute was between the employer and his workmen when it was, in fact, an individual dispute.

3. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the matter:

The court examined whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The court referred to previous decisions, including Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan and D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee, which discussed the meaning of 'industrial dispute.' The court noted that an individual dispute could become an industrial dispute if taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen.

The court held that the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction could be questioned if what was referred was not an 'industrial dispute.' The court found that the notification issued by the U.P. Government was based on the incorrect assumption that a dispute existed between the employer and his workmen. The court concluded that the reference was invalid, and the Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the appeal, holding that the dispute between the employer and Tajammul Hussain did not constitute an 'industrial dispute' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference made by the U.P. Government was invalid, and the Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The court emphasized the importance of collective disputes in the context of industrial legislation and the necessity of achieving collective amity between labor and capital.