J.H. JADHAV versus M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 11-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'A 
J.H. JADHAV 
V . 
. MIS. FORBES GOKAK LTD. 
FEBRUARY 11, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 226 : 
c 
Judicial review-Scope of-Industrial dispute raised by employee-
Objection of employer that employee's claim was not industrial was rejected 
---~ 
by Tribunal after appreciation of evidence-High Court reversed the finding 
of Tribunal-Justification of-Held: Tribunal's order being not irrational or 
\'-
perverse, High Court not justified in interfering with the same-labour laws-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Section 2(k). 
D 
On rejection of appellant's claim for promotion by Respondent-
employer, he raised an industrial dispute seeking promotion w.e.f. the date 
his juniors were promoted. Respondent contested the claim on the ground: . 
that the dispute raised was individual and not industrial, as the workman 
E 
was not supported by substantial number of workmen or majority union. 
Tribunal held that in the light of evidence put forth by the appellant, his 
cause has been espoused by the Gokak Mills Staff Union. Against this, 
Respondent filed writ petition. Single Judge dismissed the same. Aggrieved 
respondent filed Writ appeal. Division Bench allowed the same. Hence the 
present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1-
HELD: I.I. Under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
an Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between an 
employer and employers or between employers and workmen, or between 
._
G workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-
~ 
employment or the terms of the employment or with the condition of 
labour, of any person. For the purpose of Section 2(k), the dispute is to 
be sponsored or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of 
workmen. (91-B-DJ 
H 
88 
~
-
J.H. JADHAV v. FORBES GOKAK LTD. [RUMA PAL. J.] 
89 
1.2. The phrase "the union" merely indicates the Union to which the A 
employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the 
workmen and .where the establishment had no union on its own and some 
of the employees had joined the Union of another establishment belonging 
to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to 
take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those B 
workmen, despite the fact that such Union was not exclusively of the 
workmen working in the establishment concerned. (91-D) 
Workmen of Mis Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) v. Mis 
Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) ( 19651 3 SCR 394, relied on 
Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd v. Management of 
Indian Express Newspaper Private ltd., AIR (1970) SC 737, referred to 
c 
2. There is nothin~ to show that appellant was not a member of the 
Gokak Mills Staff Union or the Union was not of the respondent 
establishment. Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, D 
appreciated evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union 
had espoused the appellant's cause. The Division Bench misapplied the 
principles of judicial review under Article 226 in interfering with the 
decision. It was not a question of there being no evidence of espousal before 
the Industrial Tribunal. The Division Bench ought not have upset this 
finding without holding that the conclusion was irrational or perverse. 
E 
(91-F; 92-A, B, Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1089 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2004 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 4503 of 2001 (L). 
G.V. Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
Raj Birbal, U.A. Rana, Arvind Kumar, Madhup Singbhal and S. 
F 
Chatterjee for Mis. Gagrat & Co. for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant was employed by the respondent. He claimed promotion 
as a clerk. When this was not granted, the appellant raised an industrial H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A dispute. The questiori whether the appellant was justified in his prayer for 
promotion with effect from the date that his juniors were promoted was 
referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Government. In their written 
·statement before the Tribunal the respondent denied the appellant's claim for 
promotion on merits. In addition; it was contended by the respondent that the 
B individual dispute raised by the appellant was riot an industrial dispute within 
the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes 'Act, 1947, as t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.