Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 404 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the decision dated March 10	 1958	 of the Industrial Tribunal	 Rajkot	 in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1955. M. C. Setalvad	 Attorney General for India	 R. J. Kolah	 section N. Andley	 J. B. Dadachanji	 Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra	 for the appellants. Janardan Sharma	 for respondent No. 2. 1960. March	 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR	 J. Can a registered trade union representing a minority of workmen governed by an award give notice to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award under section 19(6) of the XIV of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act)? That is the short question which arises for decision in the present appeal. In answering the said question it would be necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and to ascertain the true meaning. and effect of section 19(6) on its fair and reasonable construction. The controversy thus raised undoubtedly lies within a narrow compass; but before addressing ourselves to the merits of the dispute	 it is necessary to state the material facts which led to the present proceedings. The present appeal has been brought before this Court by the Associated Cement Companies Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) against their workman (hereinafter called the respondents)	 and it arises from an industrial dispute between them which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal for the State of Saurashtra by the Saurashtra Government under section 10(1) of the Act. Several items of demand presented by the respondents constituted the subject matter of the reference. When the tribunal began its proceedings the appellant raised four preli 159 minary objections against the competence of the reference itself. The tribunal heard parties on these preliminary objections	 and by its interlocutory judgment delivered on March 10	 1958	 it has found against the appellant on all the points. In the result it set down the reference for further hearing on the merits. It is against this interlocutory judgment and order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave. Out of the four points urged by the appellant as preliminary objections we are concerned with only one in the present appeal	 and that relates to the incompetence of the reference on the ground that the award in question by which the parties were bound has not been duly terminated under section 19(6) of the Act inasmuch as the union which purported to terminate the said award represents only a minority of workmen bound by it. The circumstances under which this contention was raised must now be stated in some detail. The appellant is a limited company and owns and runs a number of cement factories spread out in different States in India as well as in Pakistan. It has a factory at Porbandar in Saurashtra. The factory is known as the Porbandar Cement Works. An industrial dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents in 1949 and it was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal on March 22	 1949. This reference ended in an award made on September 13	 1949. Thereafter the said award was terminated by the appellant; and on disputes arising between it and the respondents another reference was made to the same tribunal for adjudication of the said disputes. A second award was made on July 24	 1951	 by which the earlier award with slight modifications was ordered to continue in operation. In the proceedings in respect of both the references the appellant 's workmen were represented by their Union called Kamdar Mandal	 Cement Works	 Porbandar. It appears that the registration of the said union was cancelled on July 2	1954	 and that led to the formation of two unions of the appellant 's workmen	 the Cement Kamdar Mandal which was registered on 160 July 7	 1954	 and the Cement Employees ' Union which was registered on September 18	 1954. The Cement Kamdar Mandal gave notice to the appellant 's manager on September 23	 1954	 purporting to terminate the first award pronounced on September 13	 1949	 at the expiration of two months ' notice from the date of the said communication. By another letter written on December 20	1954	 the same union purported to terminate the second award pronounced on July 24	 1951	 in a similar manner. On November 22	 1954	 the said Mandal presented fresh demands most of which were covered by the two previous awards. The said demands were referred to the Conciliation Officer for conciliation but the efforts at conciliation failed.	 and on receiving a failure report from the officer the Saurashtra Government made the present reference purporting to exercise its jurisdiction under section 10(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant 's case is that the Cement kamdar Mandal was not authorised to terminate either of the two awards under section 19(6) of the Act	 that the second award is thus still in operation	 and so the reference is invalid. Meanwhile it appears that the Cement Employees ' Union	 which represents the majority of the appellant 's workmen at Porbandar	 instead of giving notice of termination under section 19(6) raised disputes with the appellant and the same were referred to the Conciliation Officer. Efforts at conciliation having failed the conciliation officer made a failure report to the Government of Saurashtra; the Saurashtra Government	 however	 did not refer the ' said dispute for adjudication. In the present proceedings this Union has been impleaded and it has supported the demands made by the Cement Kamdar Mandal; in other words	 notwithstanding the rivalry between the two Unions	 the demands made by the minority union were supported by the majority union	 and in fact	 in the appeal before us	 it is the latter union that has appeared to contest the appeal. The tribunal has dealt with the point of law raised by the appellant under section 19(6) on the assumption that the Cement Kamdar Mandal which purported to terminate the awards under the said section represents the minority 161 of the workmen employed at Porbandar	 and we propose to deal with the point raised in the appeal on the same assumption. The main sections which fall to be considered in dealing with the dispute are sections 18 and 19 as they stood in 1954. Section 18 provides	 inter alia	 that an award which has become enforceable shall be( binding on (a) all parties to the industrial dispute	 (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute	 unless the Board or tribunal	 as the case may be	 records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause	 (c) where a party referred to in cl. (a) or cl. (b) is an employer	 his heirs	 successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates	 and (d) where a party referred to in cl. (a) or cl. (b) is composed of workmen	 all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment	 as the case may be	 to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute	 and all persons who subsequently became employed in that establishment or part. It is thus clear that though an industrial dispute may be raised by a group of workmen who may not represent all or even the majority of workmen	 still	 if the said dispute is referred to the industrial	 tribunal for adjudication and an award is made	 it binds not only the parties to the dispute or other parties summoned to appear but all persons who were employed in the establishment or who would be employed in future are also governed by the award ; in other words	 the effect of section 18 is that an award properly made by an industrial tribunal governs the employer and all those who represent him under section 18(c) and the employees who are parties to the dispute and all those who are included in section 18(b) and (d). Section 19 prescribes the period of operation of settlements and awards. Section 19(3) provides that an award shall	 subject to the provisions of this section	 remain in operation for a period of one year. This is subject to the provisos to suubs. (3) as well as to sub section (4) but we are not concerned with the said provisions. Section 19(6) provides that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under 21 162 sub section (3) the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which the notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the award. The effect of this sub section is that unless the award is duly terminated as provided by it shall continue to be binding notwithstanding the expiration of the period prescribed by sub section This position is not in dispute. The dispute between the parties centers round the question as to who can issue the notice terminating the award on behalf of workmen who are bound by the award as a result of section 18 of the Act. What the sub section requires is that a notice shall be given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties. To whom the notice should be given may not present much difficulty. Where the award is sought to be terminated on behalf of the employees the notice has to be given to the employer and that is the party entitled to receive notice. Then	 as to " the parties " to whom also notices are required to be given	 it may perhaps be that the parties intended are those joined under section 10	 sub section (5) or under section 18	 sub section (2) or are otherwise parties to the dispute; but with that aspect of the question we are not concerned in the present appeal	 because notice has been given to the appellant and all the workmen concerned in the dispute have appeared before the tribunal through the two respective unions. The question with which we are concerned and which is not easy to determine is the true interpretation of the word " any party bound by the award ". We have already noticed the effect of section 18	 and we. have seen how wide is the circle of persons who are bound by the award as a result of the said section. 	 Literally construed	 any party bound by the award may mean even a single employee who is bound by the award	 and on this literal construction even one dissatisfied employee may be entitled to give notice terminating the award. On the other hand	 it may be possible to contend that any party in the context must mean a party that represents the majority of the persons bound by the award. 163 Terminating the award is a serious step and such a step can be taken by a party only if it can claim to represent the will of the majority on that point. It is for this construction that the appellant contends before us. In construing this provision it would be relevant to remember that an industrial dispute as defined by section 2(k) of the Act means any dispute 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. This definition emphatically brings out the essential characteristics of the dispute with which the Act purports to deal. The disputes must relate to the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour and they must arise	 inter alia	 between workmen and their employer. Ordinarily	 an individual dispute which is not sponsored by the union or is otherwise not supported by any group of workmen is not regarded as an industrial dispute for the purposes of the Act. A provision like that contained in section 33A is of course an exception to this rule. The basis of industrial adjudication recognised by the province of the Act clearly appears to be that disputes between employers and their employees would be governed by the Act where such disputes have assumed the character of an industrial dispute. An element of collective bargaining which is the essential feature of modern trade union movement is necessarily involved in industrial adjudication. That is why industrial courts deal with disputes in relation to individual cases only where such disputes assume the character of an industrial dispute by reason of the fact that they are sponsored by the union or have otherwise been taken up by a group or body of employees. In The Central Provinces Trans port Services Limited vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (1) this Court has observed that " the preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the view that an individual dispute cannot per se be an industrial dispute but may become one if taken up by a (1) [ ; 164 trade union or a number of persons ". These observations have been cited with approval by this Court in the case of The Newspapers Limited vs The State Industrial Tribunal	 U. P. Having regard to this aspect of the matter it would be difficult to hold that "any party bound by the award " can include an individual workman	 though speaking literally he is a party bound by the award. In our opinion	 there fore	 the said expression cannot include an individual workman. We oughtto add that this position is fairly conceded by '.Sharma for the respondents. That takes us tothe question as to whether the expression " any party bound by the award " must mean a union representing the majority of the workmen bound by it or a group of workmen constituting such majority acting otherwise than through the union. The expression " any party bound by the award " obviously refers to	 and includes	 all persons bound by the award under section 18. The learned Attorney General has urged before us that we should construe section 19(6) so as to preclude a minority of workmen bound by the award from disturbing the smooth working of the award and thereby creating an industrial dispute. When an award is made it binds the parties for the statutory period under section 19(3); and even after the expiration of the said period it continues to be binding on the parties under section 19(6) unless it is duly terminated. The policy of the Act	 therefore	 appears to be that the smooth working. of the award even after the prescribed statutory period should not be disturbed unless the majority of the workmen bound by it feel that it should be terminated and fresh demands should be made. If a minority of workmen or a minority union is allowed to terminate the award it would lead to the anomalous result that despite the willingness of the majority of workmen to abide by the award the minority can create disturbance and raise an industrial dispute and that cannot be within the contemplation of the Legislature when it enacted section 19(6) of the Act. That in substance is the argument urged before us; thus presented the argument no doubt appears prima facie attractive; (1) ; 165 but	 in our opinion	 it would be unreasonable to accept this construction and impose the limitation of the majority vote in the matter of the termination of the award. The effect of imposing such a limitation would	 in our opinion	 seriously prejudice the interests of the employees. It is well known that the trade union movement in this country cannot yet claim to cover all employees engaged in several branches of industry. Membership of the important trade unions no doubt shows an appreciable increase and progress	 but the stage when trade unions can claim to have covered all employees or even a majority of them has still not been reached. If the majority rule for which the appellant contends is accepted and section 19(6) is accordingly construed	 termination of the award would	 we apprehend	 become very difficult	 if not impossible	 in a very large number of cases. It is in this context that the effect of section 18 has to be borne in mind. As we have already indicated the class of employees bound by the award under section 18 is very much wider than the parties to the industrial dispute in which the award is made; the said class includes not only all the persons employed in the establishment at the date of the award but it covers even the subsequent employees in the said establishment. It is	 therefore	 obvious that if the majority rule is adopted very few awards	 if any	 could be terminated because very few unions would be able to claim a majority of members on their rolls	 and in their present stage of Organization in very few cases would a majority of workmen be able to meet	 decide and act together otherwise than through their unions. That is why the majority rule would very seriously prejudice the rights of employees to terminate awards when they feel that they need to be modified or changed. That is one aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored in construing the material words in section 19(6). There is another aspect of the question which is also relevant and which	 in our opinion	 is against the construction suggested by the appellant. We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even 166 though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words	 the majority rule on which the appellant 's construction of section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference of an Industrial dispute under section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred for adjudication under section 10. It is true that an award pronounced on such reference would bind all the employees under section 18; but logically	 if an industrial dispute can be raised by a minority of workmen or by a minority union why should it not be open to. a minority of workmen or a minority union to terminate the award which is passed on reference made at their instance ? The anomaly to which the learned Attorney General refers has no practical significance. If the majority of workmen bound by the award desire that the award should continue and needs no modification	 they may come to an agreement in that behalf with their employer	 and adopt such course as may be permissible under the Act to make such agreement effective. However that may be	 we are satisfied that both logic and fairplay would justify the conclusion that it is open to a minority of workmen or a minority union to terminate the award by which they	 along with other employees	 are bound just as much as it is open to hem to raise an industrial dispute under the Act. hat is the view taken by the industrial tribunal in he present case and we see no reason to differ from it. It appears that when this question was argued before the tribunal the appellant strongly relied on rule 83 framed by the Government of Bombay under section 38 of the Act; and it was urged that the said rule is consistent with the construction sought to be placed by the appellant on section 19(6). It is conceded that at he relevant time this rule was not in force; and so it s strictly not applicable to the present proceedings. hat being so	 we do not propose to consider the argument based on the said rule and to examine the question as to whether the rule really supports the appellant 's construction	 and	 if yes	 whether it would be valid. The question raised before us must obvi 167 ously be decided on a fair and reasonable construction of section 19(6) itself	 and the rule in question	 even if applicable would not be material in that behalf. We accordingly hold that	 on a fair and reasonable construction of section 19(6) the true position is that	 though the expression "any party bound by the award" refers to all workmen bound by the award	 notice to terminate the said award can be given not by an individual workman but by a group of workmen acting collectively either through their union or otherwise	 and it is not necessary that such a group or the union through which it acts should represent the majority of workmen bound by the award. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant 's workmen were represented by a Union called Kamdar Mandal Cement Works	 Porbandar. The registration of the said union was cancelled and that led to the formation of two Unions	 the Cement Kamdar Mandal and Cement Employees Union. The Cement Kamdar Mandal gave two notices one after another to the appellant	 purporting to terminate two previous awards	 wherein the defunct union represented the workmen. Thereafter the Mandal presented fresh demands and the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. The second union	 the Cement Employees ' Union which represented the majority of the appellant 's workmen at Porbandar had been impleaded in the proceedings. The appellant raised preliminary objections before the Tribunal against the competency of the reference inter alia on the ground that the award in question by which the parties were bound had not been duly terminated under section 19(6) of the Act in as much as the union which purported to terminate the said award represented only a minority of workmen bound by it. The Tribunal by its interlocutory judgment found against the appellant. The dispute between the parties centres round the question as to who can issue the notice terminating the award on behalf of workmen who are bound by the award as a result of section 18 of the Act. The question therefore for decision is whether a registered trade union representing a minority of workmen governed by an award can give notice to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award under section 19(6) of the . Held	 that the effect of section 18 is that an award properly made by an industrial tribunal governs the employer and all those who represent him under section 18(c) and the employees who are parties to the dispute and all those who are included in section 18(b) and (d). On a fair and reasonable reading of section 19(6)	 the true position is that	 though the expression "any party bound by the award" refers to all workmen bound by the award	 notice to terminate the said award can be given not by an individual workman but by a group of workmen acting collectively either through their union or otherwise	 and it is not necessary that such a group of workmen acting collectively either through their union or otherwise	 should represent the majority of workmen bound by the award. Thus it is open to a minority of workmen or a minority union to terminate 158 the award by which they	 along with other employees	 are bound just as much as it is open to them to raise an industrial dispute under the Act. The Central Provinces Transport Services Limited vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan; 	 and The Newspapers Limited vs The State Industrial Tribunal	 U. P.; 	 	 referred to.