Case: Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd Vs. The Management

in similar or allied trades. But the U. P. Working Journalists Union, Lucknow, with which the third respondent had no concern, took the matter to the Conciliation Board. On a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government the legality of that reference was challenged by the appellant company on the ground that the said dispute could not be treated as an industrial dispute under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 which defined by Section 2 and industrial dispute as having the same meaning assigned to it in Section 2 (k) of the Central Act. This Court upheld the contention observing that the notification referring the said dispute proceeded on an assumption that a dispute existed between the employer and "his workmen", that Tajammul Hussain, the workman concerned, could not be described as "workmen", nor could the U. P. Working Journalists Union be called "his workmen" nor was there any evidence to show that a dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The question whether the union sponsoring a dispute must be the union of workmen in the establishment in which the workman concerned is employed or not had not so far arisen. It seems such a question arose for the first time in the case of (1962) 3 SCR 893 = (AIR 1963 SC 318 ) (supra). The decision in that case laid down (1) that the Industrial Disputes Act excluded its application to an individual dispute as distinguished from a dispute involving a group of workmen unless such a dispute is made a common cause by a body or a considerable section of workmen and (2) the members of a union who are not workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is sought to be raised cannot by their support convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. Persons who seek to support the cause must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute and persons who are not the employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested. The Court held that the dispute there being prima facie an individual dispute it was necessary in order to convert it into an industrial dispute that it should be taken up by a union of the employees or by an appreciable number of employees of Hindu, Bombay. The Bombay Union of Journalists not being a union of the employees of the Hindu, Bombay, but a union of all employees in the industry of journalism in Bombay, its support of the cause of the workman concerned would not convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The members of such a union cannot be said to be persons substantially and directly interested in the dispute between the workman concerned and his employer, the Hindu Bombay. But in Workmen v. M/s. Dharampal Premchand, (1965) 3 SCR 394 = (AIR 1966 SC 182 ) this Court, after reviewing the previous decisions, distinguished the case of Hindu, Bombay and held that notwithstanding the width of the words used in Section 2 (k) of the Act a dispute raised by an individual workman 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, that a union may validly raise a dispute though it may be a minority union of the workmen employed in an establishment, that if there was no union of workmen in an establishment a group of employees can raise the dispute which becomes an industrial dispute even though it is a dispute relating to an individual workman, and lastly, that where the workmen of an establishment have no union of their own and some or all of them have joined a union of another establishment belonging to the same industry, if such a union takes up the cause of the workman working in an establishment which has no union of its own, the dispute would become an industrial dispute if such a union can claim a representative character in a way that its support would make the dispute an industrial dispute. 8. The evidence of the union secretary was that in 1959-60, 31 working journalists of the respondent company were members of the Delhi Union of Journalists. It was nobodys case that these 31 members did not continue to be the members of that union in 1960-61 also. If the number of working journalists in the respondent company were to be taken as 68, membership of the union by as many as 31 working journalists would certainly confer on the union a representative character. Even if the number of working journalists were to be taken as 131, it would not be unreasonable to say that 31 i.e., about 25 per cent of them would, by becoming the members of the union, give a representative character to the union. It is clear from the evidence that at the material time there was no union of working journalists employed by the respondent company.Therefore, in accordance with the decision in (1965) 3 SCR 394 = (AIR 1966 SC 182 ) (supra), the union can be said to have a representative character qua the working journalists employed in the respondent company.There can be no doubt that the union had taken up the cause of the two workmen by its executive committee passing the said resolution and its office bearers having followed up that resolution by taking the matter before the conciliation officer. Though the grievance of the two workmen arose in July 1959 when the management declined to accept them as proof-readers the union has sponsored their cause before the date of reference as laid down in the case of Hindu, Bombay, (1962) 3 SR 893 = (AIR 1963 SC 318 ). That being the position it cannot be gainsaid that the dispute was transformed into an industrial dispute as it was sponsored by a union which possessed a representative character vis-a-vis the working journalists in the employ of the respondent company.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. The evidence of the union secretary was that in 1959-60, 31 working journalists of the respondent company were members of the Delhi Union of Journalists. It was nobodys case that these 31 members did not continue to be the members of that union in 1960-61 also. If the number of working journalists in the respondent company were to be taken as 68, membership of the union by as many as 31 working journalists would certainly confer on the union a representative character. Even if the number of working journalists were to be taken as 131, it would not be unreasonable to say that 31 i.e., about 25 per cent of them would, by becoming the members of the union, give a representative character to the union. It is clear from the evidence that at the material time there was no union of working journalists employed by the respondent company.Therefore, in accordance with the decision in (1965) 3 SCR 394   = (AIR 1966 SC 182  ) (supra), the union can be said to have a representative character qua the working journalists employed in the respondent company.There can be no doubt that the union had taken up the cause of the two workmen by its executive committee passing the said resolution and its office bearers having followed up that resolution by taking the matter before the conciliation officer. Though the grievance of the two workmen arose in July 1959 when the management declined to accept them as proof-readers the union has sponsored their cause before the date of reference as laid down in the case of Hindu, Bombay, (1962) 3 SR 893 = (AIR 1963 SC 318  ). That being the position it cannot be gainsaid that the dispute was transformed into an industrial dispute as it was sponsored by a union which possessed a representative character vis-a-vis t