Case: The Management of Pradip Lamp Works, Patna Vs. Workmen of Pradip Lamp Works, Patna, &amp; Another

by an application dated 29 November, 1963 by three other dismissed workmen complaining about their dismissal and requesting the conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings. It appears that a large number of workmen were not satisfied with the existing union, namely, the Pradip Lamp Workers Union. They, therefore, formed a new union called the Pradip Lamp Karamchari Sangh. But as the sangh was not yet registered, the workmen held a meeting on 9 December, 1963 and appointed five representatives from amongst them to represent the dismissed workmen.5. The evidence of the conciliation officer before the labour court shows that on receipt of letters from the concerned workmen he called upon the parties to appear before him for conciliation first on 21 December, 1963 and thereafter the on 23 January 1964. Though the workmens said representatives appeared before him, the management declined to do so, both orally and by letters, on the ground that the said dispute was agitated by the sangh which was not the recognized union. The reason for refusal to attend was not that the management was not aware of the actual dispute, but because the dispute was not raised by the union recognized by them. The facts that the workmen were agitating the dispute regarding the dismissal of the said ten workmen before the conciliation officer, that that officer had fixed meeting for conciliation and the managements refusal to attend are clearly borne out by the letter Ex. 1/G-a dated 29 January, 1964. That letter was addressed by the said representatives to the Labour Commissioner with copies thereof sent to the Labour Minister, the management and the conciliation officer. In that letter, the said representatives threatened that if nothing was done in the matter of the said dismissals within a month, the workmen would resort to a strike. The management refused to accept the copy of this letter sent to them presumably on the unregistered sangh. In view of these facts the management could not be heard to say that they had no previous knowledge of the dispute, nor could they take advantage, as the labour court has remarked, of the fact that through inadvertence the copy of the letter sent to them along with the reference was not of the letter of 29 January, 1964 but of another letter dated 25 June, 1964 addressed by the sangh to the management.6. The fact that the conciliation officer had fixed meetings for settling the dispute and the managements non-co operation by refusing to attend them clearly appear in the failure report of that officer (Ex. 3) dated 3 February, 1964. In that report the officer has stated that the complaint of the workmen was that the management favoured the union recognized by them, that they did not like the idea of the workmen starting a rival union though the majority of them had joined the new union and that the dismissals of the said ten workmen were in the nature of reprisals against the workmen having joined the new union. The conciliation officer has further stated that the management having refused to attend the meetings called by him, he was not in a position to give any opinion about their case or to conciliation between the parties, and added that the situation was so rapidly deteriorating that the Government should take a quick decision to avert breach of industrial peace. Obviously, the Government decided upon making the reference in pursuance of this report to have the dispute adjudicated and to avert the strike threatened by the workmen. It cannot be gain said, therefore, that there was an existing dispute, or at any rate an apprehended dispute, which became the basis of the impugned reference. The evidence of the conciliation officer that the management refused to attend the meetings called by him and that therefore he could not explain to them the complaint of the workmen is thus fully borne out by the report Ex. 3. The contention that there were no conciliation proceedings and that the failure report contained a false statement to that effect, and therefore, was not a clearly negatived by the evidence on record. That contention must consequently be rejected.7. The second contention that the dispute regarding the dismissal of the ten workmen was an individual and not an industrial dispute equally has no merit. The dispute, no doubt, was not sponsored by the recognized union but it cannot be said for that reason alone that it was not an industrial dispute. There is clear evidence that a large number of workmen, if not a majority of them, had formed a rival union. Though complaints filed before the conciliation officer at first were by the individual workmen, their cause was subsequently taken up by the new union. This is clear from the meeting held on 9 December, 1963 at which the said five representatives were elected to prosecute the cases of the ten workmen. That course presumably was adopted because the new union was not yet registered as its application for registration had not yet been finally disposed of. The letter of 29 January, 1964 shows that it was in pursuance of the authority given to them at the said meeting that the said five representatives took up these cases and complained that nothing was being done by the conciliation officer against those dismissals, and threatened a strike.8. There is, thus clear evidence of these cases having been espoused by the new union or, being yet unregistered, by a substantial number of workmen. The fact that these cases were not taken up by the recognized union does not mean that they were act industrial disputes. There are decisions of this Court which have laid down that espousal of the dispute before a reference is made even by a minority union, having a membership of substantial number of workmen, is sufficient to make such a dispute an industrial dispute. [See Workmen of Indian Express v. Management (Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 1967, dated 26 November, 1968).]

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The facts that the workmen were agitating the dispute regarding the dismissal of the said ten workmen before the conciliation officer, that that officer had fixed meeting for conciliation and the managements refusal to attend are clearly borne out by the letter Ex. 1/G-a dated 29 January, 1964. That letter was addressed by the said representatives to the Labour Commissioner with copies thereof sent to the Labour Minister, the management and the conciliation officer. In that letter, the said representatives threatened that if nothing was done in the matter of the said dismissals within a month, the workmen would resort to a strike. The management refused to accept the copy of this letter sent to them presumably on the unregistered sangh. In view of these facts the management could not be heard to say that they had no previous knowledge of the dispute, nor could they take advantage, as the labour court has remarked, of the fact that through inadvertence the copy of the letter sent to them along with the reference was not of the letter of 29 January, 1964 but of another letter dated 25 June, 1964 addressed by the sangh to thefacts that the workmen were agitating the dispute regarding the dismissal of the said ten workmen before the conciliation officer, that that officer had fixed meeting for conciliation and the managements refusal to attend are clearly borne out by the letter Ex. 1/G-a dated 29 January, 1964. That letter was addressed by the said representatives to the Labour Commissioner with copies thereof sent to the Labour Minister, the management and the conciliation officer. In that letter, the said representatives threatened that if nothing was done in the matter of the said dismissals within a month, the workmen would resort to a strike. The management refused to accept the copy of this letter sent to them presumably on the unregistered sangh. In view of these facts the management could not be heard to say that they had no previous knowledge of the dispute, nor could they take advantage, as the labour court has remarked, of the fact that through inadvertence the copy of the letter sent to them along with the reference was not of the letter of 29 January, 1964 but of another letter dated 25 June, 1964 addressed by the sangh to thedispute, no doubt, was not sponsored by the recognized union but it cannot be said for that reason alone that it was not an industrial dispute. There is clear evidence that a large number of workmen, if not a majority of them, had formed a rival union. Though complaints filed before the conciliation officer at first were by the individual workmen, their cause was subsequently taken up by the new union. This is clear from the meeting held on 9 December, 1963 at which the said five representatives were elected to prosecute the cases of the ten workmen. That course presumably was adopted because the new union was not yet registered as its application for registration had not yet been finally disposed of. The letter of 29 January, 1964 shows that it was in pursuance of the authority given to them at the said meeting that the said five representatives took up these cases and complained that nothing was being done by the conciliation officer against those dismissals, and threatened a strike.8. There is, thus clear evidence of these cases having been espoused by the new union or, being yet unregistered, by a substantial number of workmen. The fact that these cases were not taken up by the recognized union does not mean that they were act industrialare decisions of this Court which have laid down that espousal of the dispute before a reference is made even by a minority union, having a membership of substantial number of workmen, is sufficient to make such a dispute an industrial dispute.