Appeal No 532 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated February 9 1962 of the Industrial Tribunal Delhi in ID No 294 of 1961
Sukumar Ghose for the appellant
section V Gupte Solicitor General section Murthy and B P Maheshwari for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C J
The short question of law which arises for our decision in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Delhi Administration referring the dispute between the appellants the workmen of Ms Dharampal Premchand Sau ghandhi and the respondent the employer Ms Dharampal Premchand Saughandhi Delhi was valid
The order of reference has been passed by the Delhi Administration under sections 101d and 125 of the No 14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act
When the Industrial Tribunal Delhi took up this matter for hearing the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the reference was invalid inasmuch as the dispute referred to the Tribunal by the impugned order of reference is not an industrial dispute
but is merely an individual dispute which cannot be the subject matter of a valid reference under section 101 of the Act
This contention has been upheld by the Tribunal with the result that the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute referred to it
It is against this order that the appellants have come to this Court by special leave
On behalf of the appellants Mr Sukumar Ghose contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not sound and that raises the question as to whether the dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication in the present case can be said to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2k of the Act
The facts which it is necessary to state for the purpose of dealing with this point are very few and they are not in dispute
The respondent is a firm which carries on business as perfumers and tobacconists in Chandni Chowk Delhi
On the 28th July 1961 the respondent passed the impugned order dismissing the services of its 18 employees
On that date the respondent had in its employment 45 employees
It appears that on the 16th July 396 1961 the 18 employees who were dismissed by the respondent had become members of the Mercantile Employees  Association which is a registered Trade Union in Delhi
On the 29th July 1961 the said Association took up the cause of the dismissed employees and carried the dispute before the Conciliation Officer Delhi
The conciliation proceedings however failed and at the instance of the Association the present reference was made on the 6th September 1961
It is in the light of these facts that we have to decide whether the dispute referred to the Tribunal for its adjudi cation is an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2k of the Act or not
Section 2k defines an industrial dispute as meaning any dispute or difference between employers and employees 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 condition of labour of any person
This definition shows that before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an industrial dispute it must be shown that it is connected with the employment or non employment of that person
This condition is satisfied in the present case because the dispute is in relation to the dismissal of 18 workmen and in that sense it does relate either to their employment or non employment
The question however
still remains whether it is a dispute between employers and workmen
Literally construed this definition may take within its sweep a dispute between a single workman and his employer because the plural in the context will include the singular
Besides in the present case the dispute is in fact between 18 workmen on the one hand and their employer on the other and that satisfies the requirement imposed by the fact that the word workmen in the context is used in the plural
But the decisions of this Court have consistently taken the view that in order that dispute between a single employee and his employer should be validly referred under section 10 of the Act it is necessary that it should have been taken up by the Union to which the employee belongs or by a number of employees
On this view a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot by itself be treated as an industrial dispute unless it is sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen
In other words if a workman is dismissed by his employer and the dismissed workman s case is that his dismissal is wrongful he can legitimately have the said dispute referred for adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal under section 101 of the Act provided a claim for such a reference is supported either by the Union to which he belongs or by a number of workmen vide Central Provinces Transport Services vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan1 and The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal UP 2
1  2  397 This view is based on a consideration of the general policy underlying the provisions of the Act
As is well known the Act has been passed for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and its material provisions have been enacted because it was thought expedient to make provision for such investigation and settlement of disputes keeping in mind the importance of the development of Trade Union Movement on proper lines in this country
Having regard to this broad policy underlying the Act this Court and indeed a majority of Industrial Tribunals are inclined to take the view that notwithstanding the width of the words used by the Act in defining an industrial dispute it would be expedient to require that a dispute raised by a dismissed employee cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his Union or in the absence of a Union by a number of workmen
Unless such a limitation was introduced claims for reference may be made frivolously and unreasonably by dismissed employees and that would be undesirable
Besides in order to safeguard the interests of the working class in this country it was thought that the development of Trade Union movement on healthy Trade Union lines was essential and that requires that disputes between employers and employees should be settled on a collective basis
A complaint against a wrongful dismissal should therefore be the subject matter of reference provided the workmen acting collectively take up the case of the dismissed employee and contend that the dismissal is unjustified or wrongful
It is on these grounds that this Court has held that an individual dispute arising from an alleged wrongful dismissal of an employee can be validly referred under section 10 only if it is supported by the Union of the workmen to which the dismissed employee belongs or by a group of his co employees
There is no dispute that the Mercantile Employees  Association has taken up the dispute on behalf of the 18 dismissed employees
In fact as we have already indicated the said Association took up this dispute before the Conciliation Officer and when the conciliation proceed ings failed it successfully moved the Delhi Administration to make a reference under section 101 of the Act
It was however urged before the Tribunal that besides the 18 dismissed employees no other employee of the respondent is a member of the said Association and so it was contended that the said Association was not authorised to raise the dispute and in the absence of proof of the fact that the dispute had been sponsored or espoused by the Union of the employees of the respondent the reference should be held to be invalid
This contention has been upheld by the Tribunal and so the question which we have to decide is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Mercantile Employees  Association had no authority to raise and support the present dispute
398 In support of its conclusion the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court in Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs The Hindu Bombay  Anr1
In that case the services of one Salivateeswaran who claimed that he was a full time employee of the Hindu a daily newspaper published in Madras were terminated and an industrial dispute was raised in respect of the said termination by the Bombay Union of Journalists
The contention raised by the employer was that the reference was invalid inasmuch as the dispute referred for adjudication was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute
This contention was accepted by the Tribunal and that brought the dispute before this Court
In dealing with the effect of the decision pronounced by this Court in that case and particularly of certain observations made in the course of the judgment it is necessary to bear in mind one finding of fact which had been recorded by the Tribunal and confirmed by this Court
It appears that in that case the appellants strongly relied upon a resolution passed on April 17 1948 by which it was alleged that the Bombay Union of Journalists had taken up the dispute of Salivateeswaran against the Hindu and had decided to demand reliefs for the retrenched Journalist
Evidence was led to prove that such a resolution had been passed but that evidence was discarded both by the Tribunal and this Court and this Court definitely found that the evidence tends to establish the plea raised by respondent No 1 that the record of the alleged resolution was fabricated with a view to support the case of Salivateeswaran
In other words in point of fact there was no reliable evidence to show that the Bombay Union of Journalists had taken up the case of the retrenched employee Salivateeswaran
In view of this finding it follows that the observations made by this Court in regard to the requirements of a valid reference under section 101 of the Act are in the nature of orbiter observations
It does appear that in dealing with the point of law as to the requirements of a valid reference this Court observed that the dispute in the present case being prima facie an individual dispute in order that it may become an industrial dispute it had to be established that it had been taken up by the Union of employees of the Hindu Bombay or by appreciable number of employees of the Hindu Bombay
Similarly it was also observed that the principle that the persons who seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute applied to the case before the Court and so one of the tests which this Court applied was whether the persons who supported the cause were employees of the same employer if they were not it was thought that they could not be regarded as interested in the dispute and as such their support may not 1  399 convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute
That is why the support lent to the cause of Salivateeswaran by the Bombay Union of Journalists was found to be insufficient to convert the cause into an industrial dispute
These observations no doubt prima facie lend support to the view which the Tribunal has accepted
It appears that the Bombay Union of Journalists had on its roll several working Journalists in other journals but out of the three working journalists working with the Hindu at its Bombay office two had become the members of the Bombay Union of Journalists viz Salivateeswaran and Venkateswaran
Tiwari the third working journalist working in the office of the Hindu Bombay had not become a member of the said Union
In the Office of the Hindu there were seven other workmen but they were working on the administrative side
In other words out of the ten employees in the office of the  Hindu seven were on the administrative side and three on the journalism side and out of these three two were members of the Union
It is in the light of these facts that this Court expressed the opinion that the Bombay Union of Journalists was not competent to raise the dispute and even if it had raised it the dispute could not have become an industrial dispute
In our opinion the observations on which the Tribunal has relied in support of its conclusion in the present case should not be read as laying down any hard and fast rule in the matter
Take for instance the case of an employer who employs 20 workmen and assume that these workmen have not formed any Union
If the employer illegally dismisses all the workmen employed by him it cannot be suggested that the dispute about the dismissal of these employees would not become an industrial dispute because there is no Union to support them and the dismissed employees themselves cannot convert their individual dispute into an industrial dispute
In the present case out of 45 employees 18 have been dismissed and there is no evidence to show that these employees have a Union of their own
In such a case it would be difficult to hold that though the number of employees dismissed is 18 they cannot raise a dispute by themselves in a formal manner
Considerations which would be relevant in dealing with a dispute relating to an individual employee s dismissal would not be material in dealing with a case where a large number of employees have been dismissed on the same day
It is not disputed that a union of workmen may validly raise a dispute as to dismissal even though it may be a union of the minority of the workmen employed in any establishment
The majority union of course can raise a dispute and if a reference is made under section 101 of the Act at its instance the reference is valid
Similarly if there is no union of workmen in any establishment a group of employees can raise the dispute and the dispute then becomes an industrial dispute though it may 400 relate to the dismissal of an individual employee
This position is not disputed
If that is so it is difficult we think to apply or extend the observations made in the case of the Bombay Union of Journalists1 to the present case
In the present case we are dealing with a reference made by the Delhi Administration in relation to the appellants  contention that the dismissal of 18 employees is invalid and not with a case of the dismissal of a single employee
Therefore we do not think that the Tribunal was right in relying upon the decision in the case of the Bombay Union of Journalists1 in support of its conclusion that the present reference was invalid
It is well known that in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication is generally reluctant to lay down any hard and fast rule or adopt any test of general or universal application
The approach of industrial adjudication in dealing with industrial disputes has necessarily to be pragmatic and the tests which it applies and the considerations on which it relies would vary from case to case and would not admit of any rigid or inflexible formula
There is no doubt that the limitations introduced by the decisions of this Court in interpreting the effect of the definition prescribed by section 2k of the Act were based on such pragmatic considerations
It may also be conceded that if the dismissal of an individual employee working in an establishment in Delhi is taken up by the union of workmen in a place away from Delhi that would clearly not make the dispute an industrial dispute
Section 36 of the Act which deals with the representation of parties incidently suggests that the union which can raise an individual dispute as to a dismissal validly should be a union of the same industry
Generally it is the union of workmen working in the same establishment which has passed the impugned order of dismissal
But in a given case it is conceivable that the workmen of an establishment have no union of their own and some or all of them join the union of another establishment belonging to the same industry
In such a case if the said union takes up the cause of the workmen working in an establishment which has no union of its own it would be unreasonable to hold that the dispute does not become an industrial dispute because the union which has sponsored it is not the union exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned
In every case where industrial adjudication has to decide whether a reference in regard to the dismissal of an industrial employee is validly made or not it would always be necessary to enquire whether the union which has sponsored the case can fairly claim a representative character in such a way that its support to the cause would make the dispute an industrial dispute
Industry has been defined by section 2j of the Act and it seems to us that in some cases the union of workmen working in one industry may be competent to raise a dispute about the wrongful dismissal of an employee engaged in an establishment belonging to the same industry where workmen 1   401 in such an establishment have no union of their own and an appreciable number of such workmen had joined such other union before their dismissal
In fact the object of trade union movement is to encourage the formation of larger and bigger unions on healthy and proper trade union lines and this object would be frustrated if industrial adjudication were to adopt the rigid rule that before any dispute about wrongful dismissal can be validly referred under section 101 of the Act it should receive the support of the union consisting exclusively of the workmen working in the estab lishment concerned
Besides there is another way in which this question can be considered
If 18 workmen are dismissed by an order passed on the same day it would be unreasonable to hold that they themselves do not form a group of workmen which would be justified in supporting the cause of one another
In dealing with this question we ought not to forget the basic theory on which limitation has been introduced by this Court on the denotation of the words industrial dispute as defined by section 2k of the Act
Therefore we are satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the reference on the preliminary ground that the dispute referred to it was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2k
The result is the appeal is allowed the finding of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue is reversed and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law
There would be no order as to costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
Out of 45 employees of the respondent 18 had become members of a Trade Union
Later these 18 employees were dismissed by an order passed on the same day
The Union took up the cause and ultimately the dispute was referred to the Tribunal where the respondent raised the preliminary objection that the reference was invalid inasmuch is the dispute referred to the Tribunal was not an industrial dispute but was merely an individual dispute and besides these dismissed employees no other employees of the respon dent was a member of the Union and so the Union could not raise the dispute
This was upheld by the Tribunal
In appeal by special leave HELDThe appeal must be allowed
The definition of industrial dispute in section 2k shows that before any dispute raised by any person can be said to be an industrial dispute it must be shown that it is connected with the employment or non employment of that person
This condition is satisfied in the present case
396 D Having regard to the broad policy underlying the Act this Court and indeed a majority of Industrial Tribunals are inclined to take the view that notwithstanding the width of the words used by the Act in defining an industrial dispute it would be expedient to require that a dispute raised by a dismissed employee cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his Union or in the absence of a Union by a number of workmen
397 B C Considerations which would be relevant in dealing with a dispute relating to an individual employee s dismissal would not be Material in dealing with a case where a large number of employees have been dismissed on the same day
399 G H A Union of workmen may validly raise a dispute as to dismissal even though it may be a union of minority of the workmen employed in any establishment
Similarly if there is no union of workmen in any establishment a group of employees can raise the dispute and the dispute then becomes an industrial dispute though it may relate to the dismissal of an individual employee
399 H In a given case it is conceivable that the workmen of an establishment have no union of their own and some or all of them join the union of another establishment belonging to the same industry
In such a case if the said union take up the cause of the workmen working in an establishment which has no union of its own it would be unreasonable to hold that the dispute does not become an industrial dispute because the Union which has sponsored it is not the union exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned
In every case where industrial adjudication has to decide 395 whether a reference in regard to the dismissal of an industrial employee is validly made or not it would be necessary to inquire whether the Union which has sponsored the case can fairly claim a representative character in such a way that its support to the case would make the dispute an industrial dispute
400 F H Besides 18 workmen dismissed by an order passed on the same day themselves form a group of workmen which would be justified in supporting the cause of one another
401 C Central Provinces Transport Service vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan  and The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal UP   relied on
Bombay Union of Journalists vs The Hindu Bombay  explained and distinguished