THE NEWSPAPERS LTD. versus THE STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, U.P.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 20-03-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
The State of 
Bombay 
v. 
Sa[at Pragji 
Karamsi 
Kapur J. 
1957 
March 20 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Order. The Chief Commissioner of Kutch under s. 1 
of the Bombay Act, had the power to issue notifications 
making that Act operative in Kutch or any part of 
Kutch and those powers were not affected by Art. 239 
of the Constitution particularly because of cl. 1 5 of the 
Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, 
which 
preserved 
these powers of the Chief Commissioner. 
Therefore, 
the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner on 
November 28, I 950 was valid and issued under legal 
authority ; and the Act came into force in the parts to 
which the notification made it so applicable. 
\Ve have 
therefore, come to the conclusion that the learned 
Judge was in error in holding that the notification was 
not a valid one and in so far as that was the basis of 
the acquittal of the accused, the judgment under appeal 
must be set aside. 
In the result the appeal of the State is allowed, the 
judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner acquit-
ting the respondent is set aside and that of the learned 
Magistrate sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 50 and 
sentence in default and of forfeiture restored. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE NEWSPAPERS LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, U.P. 
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPUR ]].) 
Industrial DisjJut.:, Mt>aning nf-Dtsp11te 
betu;een enlpioyer and 
a 
ringie 
ri.;orkn1an--·TV!zether 
induJtrial dzspute-Governnu,nt 
making 
referer.ce on the assufn/Jtion that a dispute exsits 
betiveen the ernployer 
and hi_1 u1nrk1nen--l11hether r:alidity of the re_(erence can be questioned 
--U.P. Industrial Di•putes Act, 
1947 (U.P. 
XXVIII rd" 1947), 
ss.2, 3-Industrial Disputes Act, 19.J.7 (XIV ef 19~ 7, s. 2 (k). 
A dispute bern:een an employer and a single workman dot>s 
not fall \vithin the definition of "industrial dispute" under the 
L'.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But though the applicability 
of the Act to an individual di;;pute as oppost>d to a dispute invol-
ving a groLp of \l\1orkmen is excluded, if the workmen as a body 
or a considerable section of them make common cause with the 
individual '\York.man then such a dispute "'ould be an industrial 
dispute. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
755 
Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v. Raghunath 
Copa! 
Patwardhan, (1956) S. C. R. 956 and D N. Banerji v. P. R. 
Mukherjee, (1953) S.C:.R. 302, rderred to. 
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 
( 1953) 1 
L.L.J. 757, in so for as it decideci that a dispute raised by an 
individual workman is within an industrial dispute, disapprnved. 
Gase-law reviewed. 
The third respondent was employed as a lino typist by the 
appellant company but on allegations of incompetence he was 
dismissed from service. 
His case \\·as not taken up by any union 
of workers of the app~llaot C'.lmpany nor by any of the unions of 
·workmen employed in similar or allied trades, but the 
U.P. 
\Vorking Journalists Union, 
Lucknow, with which 
the third 
resp<mdent had no connection took the matter to the Conciliation 
Board, Allah;iha<l, an<l ultimately thE Government made 
a 
refe1 ence to the Industrial Tribunal bv a notification in 
which 
one cf the points for determimi,tion ~eferred was as to whether 
the services of the third respondent were wrongfully terminated 
bv the managemwt. The legality of the reference was challenged 
hy the appellant and the queotion was raised as to \\·hether 
a 
di,pute between an employer and a single w0rkman falls within 
the definition of "indu'.;trial dispute" under the U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 19+7. 
Held, that the reference was bad because the dispute was 
not between the emplo,·er on the one hand and his workmen on 
the other, nor could ·the U.F. Working Journalists Union be called 
"l:is workmen", within the m~aning of the U. P. 
Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
"£'hough the making of a referenc~ by the Government under 
the Act is the exerci·:c o!' its administrative powers, an aggrieyec\ 
partv can question the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to 
sho\\· that what was rt [erred was not an industrial dispute. 
Stale 
of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, ( 1953) S.C.R. 334, referred 
to. 
C1vrL APPELLATE juRISDJCTION 
Civil Appeal 
No. 213 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Septem-
ber 22, 1954, of the A.liaahba<l High Court in Special 
Appeal No. 8 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and 
decree dated January 6, 1954 of the 5ai<l High

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