LexWORKMEN OF DIMAKUCHL TEA ESTATE versus THE MANAGEMENT OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Fcbntarz.1 4.
ll56
SUPRE;\'lE COURT REPORTS
WORKMEN OF DIMAKUC!-Jl TEA ESTATE
~ ..
THE MANAGEMENT OF DIMAKUCHI
TEA ESTATE
[HJJSj
IS. R. DAs C. J.. S. K. DAS and A. K. SARKAR JJ.1
IndustriaL
Dispute-Defi,-nition,
Interpretation of-Test-
'tl1111 pe·rs07t.'. JVleaning of-Industrial Disputes Act, lfl-17 (Act
XIV of 1947, s. 2(k).
.
The question for decision in this appeal was whether a dis-
pute raised by the workmen relating to a person who was not a
workman could be an industrial dispute as defined i:y s. 2{kj
of .the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood before the am-
E:ndments of 1956. The appellants, v.1ho were the workmen of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate, espoused the cause of one Dr. K. P.
Banerjee, Assistant Medical Officer. \Vho had been dismissed un-
heard with a month's salary in lieu of notice but v.rho had ac-
cepted such payment and left the garden and the dispute raised
was ultimately referred by the Government for adjudication
under s. 10 of the Act. Both the Tribunal and the Appellate In-
dustrial Tribunal took the vie\\' that as Dr. Banerjee was not
a \Vorkman v.rithin the meaning of the Act, the dispute v:as
not an industrial dispute as defined by s. 2(k).
Held, (per Das, C.J., and S.K. Das, J., Sarkar J, dissenting)
that the expression 'any person' occurring in s. 2 {k) of the In-
dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be given its ordinary mean·
ing and must be rr:ad and 1Jnderstood in the context of the Act
and the object the Legislature had in viev.·. Nor can it be equat-
ed either with the \?Ord 'v,'orkn1an' or 'employee'.
The two tests of an industrial dispute as defined by the sec-
tion must, therefore, be-(1) the dispute n1ust be a real dispute,
capable of being settled by relief given by one party to the
other, and (2) the person in re~pect of whom the dispute is rais-
ed must be one in Vihose employment. non-employment, terms
uf employment, or conditions of labo.ur (as the case may be).
the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest,
and this must depend on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case.
Applying these tests, the dispute in the present case which
\Vas in respect of a person \Vho \Vas not a workman and belong-
ed to a different category altogether, could not be said to be a
dispute within the meaning of s. 2(k) of the Act and the appeal
must fail.
...
Narendra Kuniar Sen v. A.U
India
h1(lvstrial
Disputes
(Labour Appellate) Tribunal, 11~53) 55 Born. L.R. 125 approved.
Western India Auto·mobile Association v. The
Industrial
Tribunal, Bombay, [1949.J 'F.C.R. 321, distinguished.
S.C.R.
SUPREME · COURT REPORTS
1157
Case-law discussed.
Per Sarkar, J.-There is no reason why the words 'any per-
son in s. 2(k) of the Act should not be given their natural mean-
ing so as to include an employee who is not a workman within
the meaning of the Act. Consequently, a dispute concerning a
person who is not a workman may be an
industrial dispute
within that section.
The primary object which the Act has in view is the pre-
servation of the industrial peace.
The Act does not make the interest of the workmen in the
dispute a condition of the existence of an industrial dispute.
Such interest is incapable of definition and ·to make it a condi-
tion of an industrial dispute would d.efeat the object of the Act.
Western India Automobile Associ'<ition v. The Industrial
Tribunal of Bombay, [1949] F.C.R. 321; Narendra Kumar _Sen v.
The All India Industrial Disputes (Labour Appellate) Tribunal,
(1953) 55 Bom. L.R. 125 and United CommerCial Bank Ltd. v.
Kedar Nath Gupta, (1952) 1 L.L.J., 782, referred to.
Even assuming that the workmen must be interested in
order that there can be an industrial dispute, the present case
satisfies that test and falls within the purview of s. 2(k) of the
Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmcrION: Civil Appeal No. 297 of
1956.
.
·Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated August 30, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of
India, Calcutta in Appeal No. Cal. 220 of 1954.
C. B. Aggarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellants.
Purslzottam Tricumdas for N.
C. Chatterjee, P. K.
Goswami, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the respon-
dent.
1958. Fabruary 4. The Judgment of Das, C. J., and S. K.
Das, J., was delivered by S. K. Das, J. Sarkar, J., delivered a
·separate Judgment.
1958
·workmen
vj
of Dimakuchi
Tea E8!ate
v.
T!te Manago,,•nt
·"f
Dimaku.;hi
Tea E•fatt
S. K. DExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.