Case: The Newspapers Ltd Vs. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P

1. The ground on which the appellant company seeks to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is that no industrial dispute existed within the meaning of the expression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,(Act XXVIII Of 1947) (hereinafter called the U.P. Act) and consequently the U.P. Government had no power to make the reference in question. Industrial Dispute is defined in S. 2 of the U.P. Act as having the same meaning assigned to it as in S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter termed the Central Act). There this expression has been defined in S. 2(k) todispute or difference between employers and employers, 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 conditions of labour, of any person.The controversy between the parties arose in the followingTajammul Hussain, respondent No. 3 was employed as a lino typist by the appellant company. He was dismissed on May 8, 1952 on allegations of incompetence under R. 12 (ii) of the Standing Orders of the appellant company. It was alleged that the dismissal of Respondent No. 3 was welcomed by his co-workers and other workmen in the employment of the appellant company and they made no grievance of it, nor did they espouse his cause.4. The case of respondent No. 3 was not taken up by any union of workers of the appellant company nor by any of the unions of workmen employed in similar or allied trades, but the U.P. Working Journalist Union, Lucknow, with which Respondent No. 3 had no connection whatsoever, took the matter to the Conciliation Board, Allahabad. Ultimately, the U.P. Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on June 3, 1953 by notification; the prefatory words of which are:"Whereas an industrial dispute in respect of the matters hereinafter specified exists between the concern known as Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad and its workmen; and whereas in the opinion of the Governor, it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order and for maintaining employment........."One of the questions referredthe services of Sri Tajammul Hussain Lino Operator were wrongfully terminated by the Management.......On February 13, 1953, the State Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and ordered his reinstatement "without break of continuity of service" and also ordered the payment of his wages for the period during which he "remained dismissed". An appeal was taken by the appellant company to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, who by its order dated February 24, 1953 affirmed the order of the Tribunal with costs. The appellant company then moved a petition in the Allahabad High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution but this was dismissed by Bhargava J. on January 6, 1954, and a special appeal with a certificate against this judgment was also dismissed. The appellant company has come up in appeal with a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

Court's reasoning:
21. In our opinion therefore Rr. 4,5 and 15 of the Rules cannot be a valid foundation for sustaining the argument raised that an individual dispute was within the definition of industrial dispute. Ordinarily, an award of a tribunal binds or affects the rights of parties to the proceedings but awards of Industrial Tribunals have extended implications and may affect the rights of all workmen of a concern or undertaking and even the future entrants. This doctrine of representation which enlarges the meaning of parties in the U.P. and Central Acts is an essential idea associated with industrial disputes and supports collectiveness as opposed to individualism. See Latham, C.J., in Metal Trades Employers Association v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1935) 54 CLRview of what has been said above, we are of opinion that in so far as that case lays down that a dispute raised by an individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have been correctlyview taken in these cases is in accord with the interpretation we have put on the expression Industrial dispute as defined in the U.P. Act or the Central Act. Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, i.e., an individual dispute is comprised in an industrial dispute must unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided.38. In spite of the fact that the making of a reference by the Government under the, Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers,that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned, even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be subject to a partys challenge. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy 1953 SCR 334   at p 347: (AIR 1953 SC 53   at p. 57) (U).39. It may also be noted that the notification issued by the U.P. Government on January 3, 1953 already quoted proceeds on the assumption that a dispute exists between the employer and his workmen. The points of dispute in the reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator. The words used in the first part of the notification show that the Government was labouring under the misapprehension that this dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workman on the othor, which, in fact it was not.Tajammul Hussain could not be termed workmen (in the plural) nor could the U.P. Working Journalists Union be called his workmen nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The very basis, therefore, of the reference was bad and must be held to be so.