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

2. Before the labour court, the management challenged the validity of the reference on the groundsthat it was invalid as the copy thereof served on the management of the workmens demand as required by rules 13 and 14 of the Bihar Industrial Rules, 1961,(b) that the dispute was not an industrial dispute as it was not sponsored by the recognized union or by a substantial number of workmen, and(c) that a letter dated 25 June, 1964 addressed by the Pradip Lamp Works Karamchari Sangh (a union which was a rival union of the one recognized by the management), to the Government could not form the basis of thelabour court found no substance in any one of these preliminary objections and held the reference valid. Hence, this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
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.