THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 13-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORT8 
THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL 
v. 
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, ·p, B. GAJEN~RAGADKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
279 
Industrial Dispute-Order of reference-Workmen shown as 
represented by Union-Whether formally defective-Workmen, "!'hen 
must be individually mentioned-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 
of Ig47), SS. 2(k), IO and 36. 
An industrial dispute between the hotel and its workmen 
was referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The attack of the hotel 
was on the form of the order o( reference, the main contention 
being that the reference was incompetent on the grounds that the 
Union could not be made a party to the reference under the 
Industrial Disputes Act, and that the reference was vague, as it 
did not indicate how many of the workers of different categories 
working in the hotel were involved in the dispute. 
Held, that the order of reference was perfectly competent 
when the parties to it and the nature of the dispute were clearly 
specified. The reference which was otherwise valid does not 
become incompetent simply because it was mentioned therein 
that the workmen will be represented by such and such Union in 
the dispute. The addition of the name of the Union was merely 
for the sake of convenience so· that the Tribunal may know to 
whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the 
reference; that does not preclude the workmen from being 
represented by another Union or even being made parties 
individually. It is unnecessary for the purpose of s. 10 of the 
Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the 
terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of work-
men to mention 1.he names of particular workmen who might 
have been responsible for the dispute. It was only where a 
dispute refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as 
represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention 
the names of the workmen concerned. 
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 291 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Novem-
ber 25, 1955, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High 
Court at Delhi, in Civil Writ Application No. 189-D 
of 1955. 
r959 
May IJ. 
r959 
The MaMger, 
Hotel Imperial 
v. 
The Chief 
Commissioner 
and Ollsers 
Wamhoo J. 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) 
Jai Gopal Sethi, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1. 
G. S. Pathak, V. P. Nayar and Janar!lan Sharma, 
for respondent No. 3. · 
1959. May 13. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
WANCHOO J.-This appeal comes before us on a 
certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under 
Art. 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. 
The 
appellant is the manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi 
(hereinafter called the hotel) while the respondents are 
the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Additional Indus-
trial Tribunal, Delhi, and the Hotel Workers' Union, 
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 
The 
main contesting respondent is respondent No. 3 (here-
inafter called the union). A dispute arose betweenthe 
hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was refer-
red to an Industrial Tribunal on October 12, 1955, by 
the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The portion of the 
order of reference, relevant for our purposes, is in 
these terms-
" Whereas from a report submitted by the Director 
of Industries and Labour, Delhi under s. 12 (4) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended, it appears 
that an industrial dispute exists between the manage-
ment of the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its work-
men as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union, 
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi; 
"AND whereas on a consideration of the said 
report the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, is satisfied 
that the said dispute should be referred to a 
tribunal ; " 
Then follows the order referring the dispute to the 
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi including the 
terms of reference. Soon after the hotel filed a writ 
application in the Punjab High Court challenging the 
order of reference on a variety of grounds. The writ 
application was heard by the High Court and dismis-
sed on ~ovember 25, 1955. The hotel then applied for 
leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted on 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
281 
January 13, 1956. The hotel obtained stay of the 
I959 
Proceedings before 

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