THE BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS versus THE HINDU BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 27-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
893 
Bombay High Court in I.L.R. [1954] Bom. 448. That 
deci11ion was, with all respect, entirely correct on 
the terms of the document then before the court. 
That being so, in our opinion, on a true and proper 
construction of the lease deed, the presumption in 
favour of the transaction creating a permanent 
lease cannot be held to have been rebutted by a 
stipulation in favour of the tenant having the 
right to surrender the lease at his choice. 
That 
being so, it must bo held that the lease deed evi-
dences an intention to create a permanent lease. 
In view of this finding, it is not necessary to advert 
to thtl other· contentions raised on behalf of the 
appellants. 
For the reasons given above, the appeal must 
be allowed; tho judgement and clocreo of the courts 
below aro sot aside and the suit giving rise to the 
appeal clismis~ed with costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND 
OTHERS 
v. 
'rHE 'HINDU', BOMBAY, AND ANOTHER 
(K. N. WANCHoo and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Industrial Di•pute-Individual Dispute-If and when can 
be cont'erted into industrial diBpute-Industrial DisputM Act, 
1947 (14 of 1947), •· 12 (6). 
The first respondent, the 'Hindu', Bo1nbay, which vvas a 
nc\vspaper establishment terminated the services of the third 
appellant as its correspondent and declined to accede to the 
request of the latter for his re-instatement. His case was taken 
up and supported by the Bombay Union of Journalists, a trade 
union, of which membership was open to all persons depending 
on jou1nalism for their livelihood. He was not supported by 
any union of the employees of the 'Hindu', Bombay, or a 
number of its workmen. The Government referred the dispute 
for adjudication under s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1961 
Siviyogesw~a Cotton 
Press, Devangere 
v. 
kl. Panachakshara;pa 
Sinha C. J. 
1961 
September 21. 
894 
SUFR'.EME !OOURT'.REBORTS _ D962] 
196(_ 
1947. The !Industrial Trib.una) rejected 1t\le rertrenFc holding 
Tl B b 
CJ,. 
.~ that the dispute.was merely an.individual dispute bet)Vcen the 
11 
·il:=n~isl;ion.oJ - 1 Hin~u', B9mbay; and the third appCllant who .had not been 
1 
v. 
s~pported by an ~pp1!eciable number df" emp)oyees of''Hindu', 
TIU ~Hindu';1JtJmbay Bombay\ On appeal, 
: 
~ 
1 
I 
r.ife1a,' tha'\ the applicability' of the Indus;~ial Disputes i\ct 
to aii'ind~vidual,dispute as distinguished ~from a ldispute~invol­
vin_g(a grOt.ip of workmen tis excluded, UnleSs .the .,yorkmen as 
a·bOd1nor a considerable section of them make. common' cause 
\vith.the individual y.rorkmen. 
Central Provinces '('ranpport Semices, Ltfl. v .. Rpvhunath 
Gopal.Patwardhar.i, .(I.956) S,.C.R. 956 and !/.'he Newspaper8 Ltd. 
v. T,he .State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. (J957) _S.C.R. 754, 
followed. 
' 
Members of a union who were 'not workmen bf the ernplo--
yer against whom the dispute was sought to be Taised could 
noti by their ·support convert an individual 
dispute~,into an 
induslrial dispute. Persons vvho sought to support· the cause of 
a ,\'\'Orkman must themselves be directly and sUbstantially inte· 
rCstcd in the dispute.and persons who were not '"employees of 
the san1e en1ployer could not be regarded as so iiittereStcd. 
Workmen of Dimakuchi 7-'ea Estate v. Management of Dima-
kuchi 1'<a Estate, (I 958) S.C.R. 1156, followed. 
In each ease in ascertaining whether an individual dispute 
h~d,~~quir,ed •the• uhara~ter of aµ industrial c\ispµte, tl;ie. te..'!t 
\Vas \Vhether at th~ date of the..refererice the dispuLC Wa'S taken 
up and supported by the u'n1old of'workmen of the employer 
against whom the dispute \Vas raised by an individual work· 
man or by an appreciable number of such wockmen. The 
jur1St!iqtion pf ,tl)e Jabour court. jVas not affected , pY .the subse-
queril withi:lra'wal of support hy'the ·-:.orkm~n \Vl\o .'originally 
sponsorecl the cause. Nor could subsequent support ):>y a union 
of concetnCd workmen 'convert what \Vas .in· individu*al dispute 
>Oll'the date of'i"efercnce into an . .ind.ustrial ·dispute and 1confer 
judsdiction.1.The Hindu v. TJidl;(orking Journalist..of.the Hindu 
in Madras, (1959) II L'.L.J. 348 and Working>Journalwt of the 
Hindu v. The Hindu (1961) I L.L.J. 288, referred to. 
I 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDIOTIOJif: Civil Appeal ~o. 
'22 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the awa,rd dated 
October 3, .1959, of the Lndustrial Tribunal, Bom-
bay, in'Reference.(I'.T.) No. 33 of 1959. 
Ramaswamy, 'E. 

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