Civil Appeal No 291 of 1956
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 25 1955 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Writ Application No 189 D of 1955
280 Jai Gopal Sethi J B Dadachanji section N Andley Rameshwar Nath and P L Vohra for the appellant
R H Dhebar and T M Sen for respondent No 1
G section Pathak V P Nayar and Janardan Sharma for respondent No 3 1959
May 13
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J
This appeal comes before us on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under article 133 1 a and c of the Constitution
The appellant is the manager Hotel Imperial New Delhi here in after called the hotel while the respondents are the Chief Commissioner Delhi the Additional Industrial Tribunal Delhi  and the Hotel Workers  Union Katra Shahanshahi  Chandni Chowk Delhi
The main contesting respondent is respondent No 3 here inafter called the union
A dispute arose between the hotel and its workmen in October 1955
It was referred to an Industrial Tribunal on October 12 1955 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi
The portion of the order of reference relevant for our purposes is in these terms Whereas from a report submitted by the Director of Industries and Labour Delhi under section 12 4 of the as amended it appears that an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Hotel Imperial New Delhi and its workmen as represented by the Hotel Workers  Union Katra Shahanshahi Chandni Chowk Delhi AND whereas on a consideration of the said report the Chief Commissioner Delhi is satisfied that the said dispute should be referred to a tribunal Then follows the order referring the dispute to the Additional Industrial Tribunal Delhi including the terms of reference
Soon after the hotel filed a writ application in the Punjab High Court challenging the order of reference on a variety of grounds
The writ application was heard by the High Court and dismissed on November 25 1955
The hotel then applied for leave to appeal to this Court which was granted on 281 January 13 1956
The hotel obtained stay of the proceedings before the Additional Industrial Tribunal from this Court on February 27 1956
That is how this dispute which would have been otherwise decided long ago is still in its initial stage
The main contention on behalf of the hotel is that the reference is incompetent and two grounds have been urged in support of it namely 1 the union could not be made a party to the reference under the  hereinafter called the Act and 2 the reference was vague as it did not indicate how many of the 480 workers of thirty different categories working in the hotel were involved in the dispute
We are of opinion that there is no force in these grounds of attack
An  industrial dispute  for our purposes has been defined in section 2 k of the Act as meaning  any dispute or difference between employers 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 Section 10 1 of the Act gives power to the appropriate government where it is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended to refer the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication
It cannot be denied on the facts of this case that there was a dispute between the hotel and its workmen and it went to this length that the hotel decided to dismiss a large number of workmen on October 7 1955
It is also undoubted that the dispute was With respect to the terms of employment Qr conditions of labour of the workmen
The Chief Commissioner would therefore have power under section 10 1 of the Act to make a reference of the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication
The attack of the hotel is on the form in which the reference was made and the contention is that the reference in this form is incompetent
We have already set out the relevant part of the order of reference giving the form in which it was made
The two parties to the dispute are clearly indicated namely 1 the employer which is the management of the hotel and 2 the workmen employed in the hotel
The objection however is that the words as represented 36 282 by the Hotel Workers  Union Katra Shahanshahi Chandni Chowk Delhi  which appear in the order of reference make it incompetent inasmuch as the union could not be made a party to the reference
We are of opinion that this objection is a mere technicality which does not affect the competence of the order of reference
The fact remains that the dispute which was referred for adjudication was between the employer namely the management of the hotel and its employees which were mentioned as its workmen
The addition of the words as represented by the Hotel Workers  Union Katra Shahanshahi Chandni Chowk Delhi  was merely for the sake of convenience so that the tribunal may know to whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the reference
That however did not preclude the workmen if they wanted to be represented by any other union to apply to the tribunal for such representation or even to apply for being made parties individually
Section 36 of the Act provides that a workman who is party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the Act by a an officer of a trade union of which he is a member or b an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union of which he is a member is affiliated or c where the workmen is not a member of any trade union by an officer of any trade union connected with or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the workman is employed
The fact therefore that in the order of reference the quoted words were added for the sake of convenience as to where the notice to the workmen should be sent would not in our opinion make the reference incompetent
The objection further is that even if the workman is entitled to be represented by an officer of a trade union of which he is a member the reference in this case does not mention any officer of the trade union but mentions the union itself
This in our opinion is a technicality upon technicality for the union not being a living person can only be served through some officer such as its president or secretary and it is that officer who will really represent the workmen before the tribunal We are therefore of 283 opinion that the reference which is otherwise valid does not become incompetent simply because it is mentioned therein that the workmen will be represented by such and such union in the dispute
We may in this connection point out that the large majority of references under the Act which we have come across are usually in this form and the reason for it is obvious namely the convenience of informing the tribunal to whom it should send a notice on behalf of the workmen whose number is generally very large
We therefore reject the contention that the reference is bad simply because in the order of reference the words  as represented by the Hotel Workers  Union Katra Shahanshahi Chandni Chowk Delhi  have been added
Equally we see no force in the other ground of attack namely that the reference is bad because it does not specify how many of the 480 workmen of thirty different categories were involved in the dispute
It is in our opinion unnecessary for the purposes of section 10 where the dispute is of a general nature relating to the terms of employment or conditions of labour of a body of workmen to mention the names of particular workmen who might have been responsible for the dispute
It is only where a dispute refers to the dismissal etc of particular workmen as represented by the union that it may be desirable to mention the names of the workmen concerned
In this case the dispute was also about workmen to whom notice of dismissal had been given and in that connection the names of the workmen concerned were mentioned in the order of reference
We may in this connection refer to State of Madras vs C P Sarathy 1 where a similar attack on the competence of a reference was made on the ground of vagueness
I In that case the reference was in these terms  WHEREAS an industrial dispute has arisen between the workers and managements of the cinema talkies in the Madras City in respect of certain matters 1 1953 SC R 334 284  AND WHEREAS in the opinion of His Excellency the Governor of Madras it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication Thereafter followed the order of reference which did not even contain the terms of reference
The order however indicated that  the Industrial Tribunal may in its discretion settle the issues in the light of a preliminary enquiry which it may hold for the purpose and thereafter adjudicate on the said industrial dispute The Commissioner of Labour was requested to send copies of the order to the managements of cinema talkies concerned
It was held there that  the reference to the Tribunal under section 10 1 of the  cannot be held to be invalid merely because it did not specify the disputes or the parties between whom the disputes arose 
It was further held that  the Government must of course have sufficient knowledge of the nature of the dispute to be satisfied that it is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act as for instance that it relates to retrenchment or reinstatement
But beyond this no obligation can be held to lie on the Government to ascertain particulars of the disputes before making a reference under section 101 or to specify them in the order
 The present reference as compared to the reference in that case cannot be called vague at all
Here the parties to the dispute are clearly specified namely 1 the management of the hotel and ii its workmen
The nature of the dispute is also specified in the terms of reference
It was in our opinion entirely unnecessary to mention in the order of reference as to who were the workmen who were responsible for the dispute
We are therefore of opinion that this attack on the ground of vagueness also fails
There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs to respondent No 3
In view of the fact that more than three years have passed since the reference was made we trust that the Additional Industrial Tribunal will now dispose of the matter as expeditiously as it can
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
R was the karta of the Hindu undivided family which became interested in a business concern which was then being carried on by others
With a view to taking over the said business as a going concern a company was floated with R as one of the promoters
Pursuant to an agreement with the vendors
of the business and in anticipation of the incorporation of the company R on behalf of the company took over the concern carried it on and supplied the finance at all stages out of the joint family funds
On December 19 1930 the contemplated company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as 321  a private company with limited liability in which of the total 950 ordinary shares R had 326 shares and his brother 356 shares
The Articles of Association of the company provided for the appointment of R as the first managing director of the company
Prior to the accounting year relevant to the assessment year I943 44 the amount received by R as managing director s remuneration was credited in the books of the Hindu undivided family just as the dividends on the shares held in the names of R and his brother had been done
For the assessment year I943 44 it was claimed that the amount which R received as the managing director s remuneration in the relevant accounting year was his personal earnings and that it should not be added to the income of the Hindu undivided family but the Income tax Officer rejected this claim
It was contended for the assessee that under the Indian Companies Act a Hindu undivided family cannot by reason of the definition given in section 29 A be appointed a managing agent of company and that the office of managing director involves a personal element and the appointment of a managing director must necessarily be of a particular person for his personal skill and other qualities and therefore the remuneration received by him must be his personal earnings
Held that though vis a vis the company the managing director was undoubtedly the individual person who was appointed as such and the company was not concerned with the managing director s Hindu undivided family or the members thereof the question whether the amount received by the karta by way of managing director s remuneration was his personal income or was the income of the Hindu undivided family arises as between the karta and the members of his family and would depend on whether it was earned with the help of joint family assets
In the present case on the facts found that the promotion of the company the taking over of the concern and the financing of it were all done with the help of the joint family funds and that R did not contribute anything out of his personal funds held that the managing director s remuneration received by R was as between him and the Hindu undivided family the income of the latter and should be assessed in its hands
Kaniram Hazarimal vs Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal  V D Dhanwatay vs Commissioner of Income tax Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal In re Haridas Purshottam and Gokul Chand vs Humam Chand Nath Mal 192I 48 IA 162 relied on
Commissioner of Income tax Madras vs section N N
Sankaralinga IYerl  Murugappa Chetty vs Commissioner of Income tax Madras  Sardar Bahadur Indra Singh vs Commissioner of Incomc tax Bihar and Orissa 41 322 and Commissioner of Income tax Bihar and Orissa vs Darsaram  distinguished