WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LTD. versus THE MANAGEMENT

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 26-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, • 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LTD. 
v . 
THE MANAGEMENT 
November 26, 1968 
[J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 10-Requirements for 'individual dis-
pute' beco1ning an "'industrial dispute". 
The workmen were appointed by the respondent company under the 
designation of copy holders and an order in July 1959, issued by the 
management, expressly described them as such. 
It was alleged however, 
that despite this order, the management, beth before and after the date 
of the order, had always given 
to the workmen the 
work of proof-
readers. 
A dispute arose whether the two wvrkmen should be treated 
as proof readers and the executive committee of the Delhi Union 
of 
Journalists, at a meeting on December 1, 1966, after considering the 
representation made to it by the two empioyees, decided to take up their 
case and thereafter initiated conciliation 
proceedings. 
Eventually, 
the 
Delhi Administration referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It 
was contended by the management before the Tribunal that the dispute 
was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute so that the Tribu-
nal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate it. The Tribunal accepted this con-
tention. 
Evidence was led before the Tribunal to show that the working 
Journalists employed by the respondent company numbered 131 out of 
whom 68 we're employed in Delhi. Out of these, 31 
were members 
of the Delhi Union of Journalists which was an outside union and which 
they had joined after July 1959. 
The Tribunal's view was that the 31 
working journalists having joined the Union after the cause of action had 
arisen in July 1959, 
the reSGlution 
of the 
union's 
executive 
com-
mittee would not constitute espousal of the workmen's dispute as 
there would be no nexus between the dispute and the Union, and there· 
fore, the resolution dated December 1, 1960 did not have the effect of 
converting the dispute into an industrial dispute. 
Jn appeal to this Court by special leave, 
HELD : The Tribunal's view that the dispute was not an industrial 
dispute, was incorrect. 
Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 
893, Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Pat-
wardhan, [1956] S.C.R. 956, Newspapers Ltd. \". State Industrial Tribunal 
U.P., [1957] S.C.R. 754 and Workmen v. M / s. Dharampal Premchand, 
[1965] 3 S.C.R. 394, referred to. 
G 
The espousal by the union could not be said to be beyond time a> 
H 
such espousal could only take place after and not before the 
dispute 
arose or the cause of action arose. 
The test of 'an industrial dispute is 
whether at !be date of the referen.ce the dispute was taken up and sup-
ported by a union, or by an appreciable number of workmen. In the 
present case this test was clearly satisfied. [917 CJ 
If the number of working journalists in the respondent company were 
!O be ~aken as 68, m~mbership of the union by as many as 31 working 
iourna!1sts would certainly confer on the union a representative character 
Even 1f the number of working journalists were to be taken as 13 I, it 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969) 2 S.C.R. 
would not be unreason.able to say that 3 J, i.e. about 25 % of them would, 
by becoming the members of the union, give a representative character 
to the union. 
At the material time there was no union of . working 
journalists employed by the respondent company. Therefore, in aceor-
dance with the decision in the Workmen v. Mis. Dharampal Premchand 
the union could be said to have a representative character qua the work-
ing journalists employed in the 
respondent company. The union 
had 
taken up the cause of the two workmen by its executive comrnittee pass-
ing a resolution and its office bearers having followed up that resolution 
by taking the matter before the conciliation officer. Though the grievance 
of the two workmen arose in July 1959, when the management declined 
to accept them as proof-readers the union had sponsored their cause be~ 
fore the date of reference as laid down in the case of The Hindu, Bombay. 
That being the position it could not be gainsaid that the dispute was 
transformed into an industrial dispute as it was sponsored by a union 
which possessed a representative character vis-a-vis the working journalists 
in the employ of the respondent company. [919 G--G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 
1967. 
B 
c 
Appeal by special

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