WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. versus WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. WORKERS UNION & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 09-01-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

370 
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. WORKERS UNION & ORS. 
January 9, 1970 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispuie-Union espousing cause of dis1nissed workn1an-
Jj such workman should be member of the Union._U,P.' Jndustrial Di~ 
pules Act (28 of 1947). s. 4(k) and Indust,ial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), 
s. 10-'At any time' scope of~efusaJ by Government to refer dispute 
for adjudioation-lf and }Vhen Govern1nent can reconsider decision. 
C 
The appellant terminated the service of a workman in 1957. At that 
time he -was not a member of the respondent·union. 
The 
respondent 
however, espoused the cause of the 
workman and took up the matter 
beiore the Conciliation Officer. 
Two of the union's office·bearers ap .. 
peared before the Conciliation Officer but the Conciliation Officer did not 
recognise them as authorised agents of the uniOn, because, there were 
some disputes regarding their election. 
He therefore recorded that the 
D 
conciliation proceedings could not be proceeded with on the ground that 
. no authorised agent of the union, appeared before him at the proceedings. 
The State Government assumed, that though the union had espoused the 
workman's cause, it had not cared to appear at the conciliation proceed~ 
.ings at all, and .refused to refe'r the industrial di~pute for adjudication. 
In 1962, the workman became a member of the respondent-union and 
the union again took up the inatter with the Government. 
After some 
E 
correspondence, in which it was pointed out that in fact two officers of 
the Union did appear at the conciliation proceedings, 
the State Govern· 
ment, in 1963, refeited the dispute for adjudication. 
·on the question of the validity <;lf reference, 
HELD : (I) Under s. 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act. 
1947, if the State Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute 
F 
1exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, refer the dispute for 
adjudication. The expression 'at any time', does not confer an unfettered 
or arbitrary di-scretion on the Government. At whatever time the Govern-
ment decides to refer a dispute for adjudication, ther~ must, at that time. 
·exist an industrial dispute or such a dispute must be apprehended. [373 F; 
377 F-G] 
(2) Though a dispute may 
initially be an individual 
dispute, the 
other workmen may espouse it on the ground that they have a community 
of interest and that ~hey are directly and substantially interested jn the 
employment non-employment or conditions of employment of the con-
cerned workman. Therefore, when the existence of the industrial dispute 
is challenged the test is whether the dispute referred to adjudication i-; 
one in which' the workm~n or a substantial section of them have a direct 
~nd substantial interest. 
The espousal by the other workmen may be ;;it 
the time when the cause of the dispute occurs or later, because. the \Vork· 
men may not, at the time when the disp1:1te occurs, be su~cientl9 organ_ised 
·to espouse his ca•Js~ or there, mav not have been .a unu:~n at t~a.t time. 
Since no reference is C3~temp:ated by s. 4(k) when. the d1s::iute 1s not an 
G 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
WJMCO V. WORKERS UNION 
371 
industrial dispute, Of, even if it is so, it no longer exists or is_ not appre .. 
bended, the existence of the community 
of interest, evidenced by the 
espousal converting an individual dispute into an industrial dispute, must 
be at the date when the reference is made and not necessarily at the date 
when the cause· occurs. 
Further, the community of interest does not 
depend on whether the concerned workman was a member or no.t of the 
union at the date when the cause occurred. The question of the \\'Ork· 
man's membership has to be kept apart from the right of the other work-
men to espouse his cause and the power of the Government under s. 
4(k). In the present case, the r1?ference was competent because the fact 
that the workman was not a member of the union on the date \\:hen the 
cause of the dispute arose did not preclude o'r negative the existence of 
the community of interest, nor did it disable the other workmen, through 
their union, from making that 
dispute their own. [375 B-E, G-H; 176 
A-B, D; 382 A·B, D-E) 
Workmen v. Managemellt of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, 
[1958] S.C.R. 
1156, Bombay Union of Journalists 
v. 
The Hindu, Bombay,. [1962] 3 
S.C.R. 893 Workmen of Indian Express (P) Ltd. v, 
The Managemen

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