Case: The Bombay Union Of Journalists And Others Vs. The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another

2. Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) who claimed to be a full time employee of the first respondent --"The Hindu" Bombay -- Addressed a letter on February 15, 1956, to the Managing Editor of "The Hindu" - a daily newspaper published at Madras-- intimating that he was proceeding to Europe on March 1,1956. On February 16, 1956, the Assistant Editor of "The Hindu" informed Salivateeswaran that even though the latter was not a full time employee of "The Hindu", they could "not allow frequent breaks in the performance of his duties and that they would have to relieve him of his duties as correspondent from March 1, 1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him. Salivateeswaran having persisted in carrying out his project, by letter dated February 29, 1956, he was informed by the Management that be ceased to be a correspondent of "The Hindu" from March 1, 1956. After returning from his tour of Europe, Salivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinstatement and called upon the management of "The Hindu" to treat the period of his absence out of India as leave. The management of "The Hindu" having declined to accede to that demand Salivateeswaran filed an application under S. 17 of the Bombay Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955, claiming Rs. 1,57,172-8-0 under diverse heads alleging that termination of his employment was wrongful and that it amounted to retrenchment. The management of "The Hindu" denied that Salivateeswaran was their employee and submitted that the Authority under Act 45 of 1955 had no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact. The Authority rejected this contention holding that he was competent to decide disputed questions arising in the case before him. The management of "The Hindu" presented a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a direction quashing the order of the Authority, contending that S. 17 of the Act did not empower the Authority to act as a forum for adjudicating disputed claims. This Court upheld (See Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. v. Salivateeswaran, 1959 SCR 1  : (AIR 1958 SC 507  ) the plea of the Management of "The Hindu", but dismissed the petition holding that no fundamental right of the Management was infringed by the order passed by the Authority. Acting on the view expressed by this Court the Authority declined to proceed with the application, because disputed questions of fact fell to be determined in the petition before him.3. "The Hindu" had an office in Bombay since 1937. At the material time, The Hindu" had besides Salivateeswaran only nine employees seven serving on the administrative side and two journalists -- Venkateswaran and Tiwari Salivateeswaran and Venkateswaran were members of the Bombay Union of Journalists: Tiwari, the other journalist employee, was not a member of the Union. The Bombay Union of Journalists is a Trade Union, the membership of which is open to all persons who depend for their livelihood upon the practice of the profession of journalism, including press photographers, artists, cartoonists and freelance writers. This Union is admittedly not a Union of employees of "The Hindu", Bombay, but it is a Union of all persons who depend for their livelihood upon Journalism in Bombay. By its resolution dated August 16, 1956, the Bombay Union of Journalists supported the claim of Salivateeswaran in the application filed by him under S. 17 of Act 45 of 1955.4. Between April 9, 1958 and April 15,1958, four letters were addressed by 225 members of the Union (amongst whom Venkateswaran was not included) informing the Union that the termination of employment of Salivateeswaran raised "questions of principle and it was necessary that there should be a proper adjudication in which the principles maybe settled" and therefore they supported the cause of Salivateeswaran and requested the Union to take all appropriate steps to approach the State of Bombay for referring the dispute to an appropriate tribunal for adjudication under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act.5. The Union claims that these letters amounted to a requisition for calling a meeting and that they were placed before an adjourned meeting of the General Body on April 17, 1958, held under the chairmanship of one D. Y. Nathan, and in that meeting it was resolved to support the cause of Salivateeswaran in the dispute with "The Hindu" Bombay. On April 25,1958, the Union wrote to the Proprietor of "The Hindu" Bombay to settle the dispute raised by Salivateeswaran. The Hindu" Bombay having declined to accede to the request, the Union moved the Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act to intervene. The dispute was taken up for conciliation by the conciliation Officer, Bombay, but after holding several meetings with the parties the Conciliation Officer by his report dated December 5, 1958, reported failure in his efforts to bring about conciliation. Thereafter on February 9, 1959, reported failure in his efforts to bring about conciliation. There after on February 9,1959, the State of Bombay referred the dispute between "The Hindu" Bombay, and Salivateeswaran for adjudication under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order of the Government the effect whereof falls for determination in this case is as followsAIN 7459-H-Whereas the Government of Bombay considered the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under sub-sec. (4) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947 (XIV of 1947), in respect of the dispute between the Hindu, Bombay and the workmen (Working Journalists) employed under it over the demands mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto;And whereas the Government of Bombay on considering the aforesaid report is satisfied that there is a case for reference of the dispute to a Tribunal;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of the S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), read with S. 3 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (XIV of 1955), the Government of Bombay hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal consisting of Shri M. H. Meher constituted under Government Notification, Labour and Social Welfare Department No. IDA. 1157 (b) dated the 12th March,the Schedule, the claim of Salivateeswaran to receive in the aggregate Rs. 1,52,172-8-0 under diverse heads was set out.6. "The Hindu" Bombay challenged the competence of the State Government to refer this dispute on three grounds: (1) that there was no industrial establishment of "The Hindu" in Bombay and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter; (2) that Salivateeswaran was not a working journalist within the meaning of the Act and was not employed as such by "The Hindu", and there being no relationship of employer and employee between "The Hindu", and Salivateeswaran, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, and (3) that there was no dispute between the Working Journalists of "The Hindu", Bombay, on the one hand and the Management on the other and the dispute raised by Salivateeswaran was merely an individual dispute which was not supported by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu" Bombay. The Tribunal rejected the first and the second grounds but upheld the third, and holding that the dispute was merely an individual dispute between Salivateeswaran and "The Hindu" Bombay which had not been supported by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu" Bombay, the Government of Bombay had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal.

Reasoning: 8. The dispute, in the present case, being prima facie, an individual dispute, that it had been taken up by the Union of employees of "The Hindu Bombay or by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu" Bombay.By its constitution the Bombay Union of Journalists is a Union not of employees of one employer, but of all employees in the industry of journalism in Bombay. Support of the cause, by the Union, will not in our judgment convert the individual dispute of one of its members unto an industrial dispute. The dispute between "The Hindu" Bombay and Salivateeswaran was in respect of alleged wrongful termination of employment; it could acquire the character of an industrial dispute only if it was proved that it was, before it was referred, supported by the Union of the employee of "The Hindu" Bombay or by an appreciable number of itsthe present case members of the Union who were not workmen of the employer against whom the dispute was sought to be raised, seek by supporting the dispute to convert what is prima facie an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The principle that the persons who seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and subtantially interested in the dispute in our view applies to this class of case also: persons who are not employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested, that by their support they may convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The mere support to his cause by the Bombay Union of Journalists cannot therefore assist the claim of Salivateswaran so as to convert it into an industrialis true that the Executive Committee of the Bombay Union of Journalists had in August 1956. resolved to support the cause of Salivateeswaran, but that resolution was in respect of the application under Act 45 of 1955. The Union appeared before the Authority appointed by the Government of Bombay and also in this Court in the petition under Art 32 of the Constitution, but that support cannot, in our judgment assist the claim now made by Salivateeswaran. The proceedings under S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Act terminated when the Authority refused to proceed with the petition. Again, there is nothing to show that Venkateswarna had participated in any of theseevidence in support of this resolution is very unsatisfactory. For reasons to be presently set out, we are of the view that the evidence tends to establish the plea raised by the first respondent that the record of the alleged resolution was fabricated with a view to support the case ofis difficult to accept the testimony of Mahatame that even though minutes of the Executive Committees meetings were maintained, records relating to the General Body meetings were not preserved. Mahatames explanation that the agenda was cyclostyled and thereafter destroyed is too crude to be accepted. Other circumstances to which we will presently advert make it abundantly clear that the story about the resolution having been passed on April 17, 1958, isdocumentary evidence which should normally have been in existence if the case that the Union passed a resolution on April 17, 1958, was true, has not been produced on the plea either that it was not maintained or that it was destroyed. Even on the case of the appellants, there is nothing to show that notice of the meeting dated April 17 convened for the purpose of considering the requisition was ever given to Venkateswaran and if it was not given, by the mere passing of a resolution by other members of the Union the case of the appellants that the claim of Salivateeswaran was supported by Venkateswaran cannot beour view these observations correctly set out the effect of a subsequent withdrawal of support by the workmen of a cause previously espoused by them.In each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute the test is whether at the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the Union of the workmen the employer against whom the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen.If Venkateswaran or Tiwari had prior to the date of the reference supported the cause of Salivateeswaran by their subsequent affidavits the reference could not have been invalidated. But as we have already observed there was, in fact, no support to the cause of Salivateeswaran by Venkateswaran or by Tiwari and therefore the dispute continued to remain an individualresolution is alleged to have been passed by circulation after the commencement of the adjudication proceedings. If the dispute was in its inception an individual dispute and continued to be such till the date of the reference by the Government of Bombay, it could not be converted into an industrial dispute by support subsequent to the reference even of workmen interested in the dispute. We have already held that subsequent withdrawal of support will not take away the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal. On the same reasoning subsequent support will not convert what was an individual dispute at the time of reference into an industrial dispute. The resolution of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists, assuming that it has any value, would not be sufficient to convert what was an individual dispute into an industrial dispute.