INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. versus THE WORKMEN AS REPRESENTED BY INDIAN OXYGEN KARAMCHARI UNION

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 09-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
4, 
I 
.. 
~ 
~ 
• 
• 
' • 
\ 
INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. 
v: 
THE WORKMEN AS REPRESENTED BY INDIAN 
OXYGEN KARAMCHARI UNION 
Januar;y 9, 1979 
911 
A 
[P. N. SHINGHAL AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. lndu51ria/ Disputes Act, 1947 (28 of 1947) Ss. 2(/), J(d), 4K, 6B, 
61, 1(ii)-lu<lustrial dispute-Tests for calling a dispule an "industrial dispute" 
-Eltabli:.l11nen1 had a union affiliated to a Fcdtratio:1 and a non-affiliated union 
-Employer entered into settlement with affiliated union-Non-affiliated union 
tcot a p(l.riy to such settlement-Disputei raised by a non-affiliated un{on on the 
Same point-If an i_ndustrial dispute. 
C 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) S. IS-Applicability of. 
The appe.llant company had its establishments in a number of/ States in the 
.country. In its establishment at Kanpur there wer'e two unions, One of which, 
the Shramik Sangh; was a-ffiliated to the Fr..deral Union comprising of some 
of the trade unions in the various establishments. while the other, the Karama· 
chari lTnior:, was not. 
A demand relating to revision of dearness allowance 
D 
among others, was raised by -both the Unions at Kanpur. The Shramik Sangh 
and the appel1ant entered into a settlement. Karamchari Union which was not 
a party to the settlement, made an application to the State Government to 
constitute a concililartion board for reference of the dispute. 
"('he Board was 
constituted. 
In the meantime, how'cver, to bring the settlement within the 
purview of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act the Shramik Sangh applied for the 
constitution of a conciliation board. 
A conciliation board was constituted ac.d 
E 
the memorandum of settlement arrived at between th'e parties was registere~ 
even though the dispute on the same point raised by the Karamchari Union 
was pending before th'e Conciliation Boa.rd all the while. 
The dispute raised 
by the Karamchari Union was, therefor6, referred to a Tribunal under s 4K 
of th< Act. 
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's co1,1tention that it had no jurisdiction 
ir 
10 adjudicate on th'e dispute. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that it was implicit in the various 
provisions of the U.P. Act that a settlement arrived at before a Conciliation Board 
by a Union of the majority of workmen was binding on all the workmen ~r.d 
that in the absence of a provision like s. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
it 1vas not pe1missible for the Karamchari Union to contend that the, settlement 
·would bind ooly the members- of the Shramik Sangh and in arw event reference 
G 
"(lf the dispute to a Tribunal was without jurisdiction. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: l. The State Government rightly took the view that the controversy 
raised hy the Karamchari Union was an industrial dispute. [922 GwH] 
2. A realling of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 
H 
1947, clearly shows that there is nothing in the Act to require that the di9pute 
2-119SCI/79 
A 
912 
S1JPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
or difference should be raised by all the workmen of the industry, or by 
everyone of them, or even by a majority of them. It is enough if the contro-
versy is between the empl6y'cr on the orie side and workmen· on the other. There 
is also nothing in the Act to require that the workmen raising the controversy 
shculd form a majority of the employees, the reason being that wh~re it is 
found that the controversy affects, or will affect, the interests of workmen as a 
clas~, the law envisages that, in the interest of industr'ial peace, it should be 
exc,rnined and decided in one of the modes provided by it. [917 D-F] 
3. An individual dispute cannot, however, be said to be an industrial dispute 
• 
unless the other workmen associate themselves with it. 
No bard and fas-t rule 
· t-1 
can be laid down to decide when and by how many workmen an industrial 
dispute could be raised within the meaning of the Act, or whether a minority 
union or 'even an unrecognised union, could raise an industrial dispute. It is 
C 
enough if there is a potential cause of disharmony which is li~ely to endanger 
industrial peace, and a substantial number of workmen raise a dispute about it, 
for then it is permissible to view it as an industrial dispute within the meaning 
of clause (1) of s. 2 of the Act, and to refer it for adjudication to a tribunad. 
[917 f·HJ 
4. The settlement arrived at with the1 Federal Union did not bind the 
D 
;Karamchari Union as it was not a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.