STATE OF PUNJAB versus THE GANDHARA TRANSPORT COMPANY (P) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 26-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

98 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
THE GANDHARA TRANSPORT COMPANY' (P) LTD AND 
OTIIERS 
. April 26, 1973 
A 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.j 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) s. 2(k)-Dispute espoused by five out 
of the tota/. sixty l'.'orknien-lf an industrial dispute. 
The respondent company dismissed three of its workmen and retrenched an .. 
·other employee. Some of the workers demanded the reinstatement of the· dis~ 
missed workmen and payment of retrenchment compt.nsation to the retrenched 
workmen and raised a dispute about the matter. The State Government referred 
the dispute to the Labour Court. The management raised the Objection that there 
was no industrial dispute in as much as the cause of the workmen had not_ been 
espoused by a substantial body of the workmen of the company. The Labour 
P>urt rejected the objection. In a writ petition, the High Court held that there 
were 60 workmen in the employment of the respondent company, out of whom 
only 18 workmen have espoused the cause of the dismissed and retrenched em-
ployees, and even out of these 18 workmen 13 had already been dismissed and 
that ·therefore, only 5 out of 60 workmen had espoused the cause of the dismiss-
. ed and retrenched workmen; and hence, it could not be said that a substantial 
tiody of the workmen had espoused the cause of the workmen and therefore, 
the.re was no industrial dispute which could be referred. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Cour~ 
HELD : The State Government will have jurisdiction to make a reference Only 
if there is an industrial dispute. As the espousal of tOO dispute in the present 
case was only by five out of sixty employees it could not be said that there has 
been an espousal of' the dispute in this case by an appreciable body of the 
workmen of the respondent-company so as to make it an industrial dispute. Since 
there was no industrial dispute, the reference made by the State Government 
had been rightly held by the High Court to be incompetent. [161E-F] 
' 
Workmen of Rohtak General Transport Company v. Rohtak General Trans-
port Company, [1962] I L.LJ. 634, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Civil Appeal No. 449 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order September 10, 
c 
ID 
E 
1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in L.P. 
F 
No. 108 of 1966. 
v_ C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. 
Bishen Narain and Harbans Singh, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
V AIDIALINGAM, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against 
the judgment and order dated the 10th September, 1968, of the Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in L. P.A. 
No. 108 of 1966, coilfirming the order of the learned single Judge 
, and holding that the order of the State Government dated the 5th 
March, 1962 referring a dispute for adjudication was incompetent. 
The respondent company dismissed three of its workmen bet"'.een 
the 15th December, 1959 and 6th January, 1960 and it also retrenched 
another employee on the 7th February 1960. The District Motor 
Transport Workers' Union appears to have raised a dispute with the 
manageme __ t on the 17th November, 1960 and demanded the reinstate-
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PUNJAB v. GANDHARA TRANSPORT co. (Vaidicilingam, J.) 
99 
ment of the dismissed workmen as well as the payment of retrench-
ment compensation regarding the workman who was retrenched. The 
de~and not having been met with by the management and conciliation 
havmg fatled, the State Government was approached for making a 
reference of the dispute for adjudication. 
On the 9th June 
1960, 
the State Government declined to make a reference. A furthe; attempt 
was made to persuade the State Government by the workmen con-
cerned to make a reference, but that attempt also failed, as will be 
seen from the order dated the 29th July 1961. In this order, the 
State Government had stated that out of sixty workmen employed in 
the concern, only 18 workmen had supported .the demand and these 
18 included thirteen dismissed workers of the company. 
It is the 
further view of the Government that as a substantial number of work-
men had not espoused the. cause of the disinissed workmen, there was 
no industrial dispute which could be referred for .adjudication. 
It is 
to be noted from this order of the State Government that out of the 
18 workmen, who are stated to have espoused the cause of the work-
men 

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