Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
13/05/1959
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
CITATION:
1959 AIR 1214 1960 SCR (1) 279
ACT:
Industrial Dispute-Order of reference-Workmen shown as
represented by Union-Whether formally defective-Woykmen,
when must be individually mentioned-Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 ’Of I947), SS. 2(k), 10 and 36.
HEADNOTE:
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 of 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 workmen to mention the
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.
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1955,
of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, in
Civil Writ Application No. 189-D of 1955.
280
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 Janardan 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 (here in after called the hotel)
while the respondents are the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the
Additional Industrial 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 between the
hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was referred 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 management of the
Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its workmen 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 dismissed on November 25, 1955. The hotel
then applied for leave to appeal to this Court, which was
granted on
281
January 13, 1956. The hotel obtained stay of the
proceedings before the Additional Industrial Tribunal from
this Court on February 27, 1956. That is how this dispute
which would have been otherwise decided long ago is still in
its initial stage.
The main contention on behalf of the hotel is -that the
reference is incompetent and two grounds have been urged in
support of it; namely, (1) the union could not be made a
party to the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, (hereinafter called the Act); and (2) the reference
was vague, as it did not indicate how many of the 480
workers of thirty different categories working in the hotel
were involved in the dispute. We are of opinion that there
is no force in these grounds of attack. An " industrial
dispute " for our purposes has been defined in s. 2 (k) of
the-Act as meaning " any dispute or difference between
employers and workmen....... which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or
with the conditions of labour, of any person." ’Section 10
(1) of the Act gives power to the appropriate government
where it is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or
is apprehended to refer the dispute to a tribunal for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
adjudication. It cannot be denied on the facts of this case
that there was a dispute between the hotel and its workmen
and it went to this length that the hotel decided to dismiss
a large number of workmen on October 7, 1955. It is also
undoubted that the dispute was With respect to the terms of
employment Qr conditions of labour of the workmen. The
Chief Commissioner would therefore have power under s. 10
(1) of the Act to make a reference of the dispute to a
tribunal for adjudication. The attack of the hotel is on
the form in which the reference was made and the contention
is that the reference in this form is incompetent. We have
already set out the relevant part of the order of reference
giving the form in which it was made. The two parties to
the dispute are clearly indicated, namely, (1) the employer
which is the management of the hotel and (2) the workmen
employed in the hotel. The objection, however, is that the
words "as represented
36
282
by the Hotel Workers’ Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi " which appear in the order of reference make
it incompetent, inasmuch as the union could not be made a
party to the reference. We are of opinion that this
objection is a mere technicality, which does not affect the
competence of the order of reference. The fact remains that
the dispute which was referred for adjudication was between
the employer, namely the management of the hotel, and its
employees, which were mentioned as its workmen. The
addition of the words "as represented by the Hotel Workers’
Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi " 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 however did not preclude the workmen, if
they wanted to be represented by any other union, to apply
to the tribunal for such representation or even to apply for
being made parties individually. Section 36 of the Act
provides that a workman who is party to a dispute shall be
entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the Act
by (a) an officer of a trade union of which he is a member,
or (b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to which
the trade union of which he is a member is affiliated; or
(c) where the workmen is not a member of any trade union, by
an officer of any trade union connected with, or by any
other workman employed in, the industry in which the workman
is employed. The fact therefore that in the order of
reference the quoted words were added for the sake of
convenience as to where the notice to the workmen should be
sent would not in our opinion make the reference
incompetent. The objection further is that even if the
workman is entitled to be represented by an officer of a
trade union of which he is a member, the reference in this
case does not mention any officer of the trade union, but
mentions the union itself. This in our opinion is a
technicality upon technicality, for the union not being a
living person can only be served through some officer, such
as its president or secretary and it is that officer who
will really represent the workmen before the tribunal, We
are therefore of
283
opinion that the reference which is otherwise valid does not
become incompetent simply because it is mentioned therein
that the workmen will be represented by such and such union
in the dispute. We may in this connection point out that
the large ’majority of references under the Act which we
have come across are usually in this form and the reason for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
it is obvious, namely, the convenience of informing the
tribunal to whom-it should send a notice on behalf of the
workmen, whose number is generally very large. We therefore
reject the contention that the reference is bad simply
because in the order of reference the words " as represented
by the Hotel Workers’ Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi " have been added.
Equally, we see no force in the other ground of ,attack,
namely, that the reference is bad because it does not
specify how many of the 480 workmen of thirty different
categories were involved in the dispute. It is in our
opinion unnecessary for the purposes of s. 10 where the
dispute is of a general nature relating to the terms of
employment or conditions of labour of a body of workmen, to
mention the names of particular workmen who might have been
responsible for the dispute. It is only where a dispute
refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as
represented by the union that it may be desirable to mention
the names of the workmen concerned. In this case, the
dispute was also about workmen to whom notice of dismissal
had been given and in that connection the names of the
workmen concerned were mentioned in the order of reference.
We may in this connection refer to State of Madras v. C. P.
Sarathy (1), where a similar attack on the competence of a
reference was made on the ground of vagueness. I In that
case the reference was in these terms:
" WHEREAS an industrial dispute has arisen between the
workers and managements of the cinema talkies in the Madras
City in respect of certain matters;
(1) [1953] S.C. R - 334.
284
" AND WHEREAS in the opinion of His Excellency the Governor
of Madras, it is necessary to refer the said industrial
dispute for adjudication;
Thereafter followed the order of reference, which did not
even contain the terms of reference. The order however
indicated that " the Industrial Tribunal may, in its
discretion, settle the issues in the light of a preliminary
enquiry which it may hold for the purpose and thereafter
adjudicate on the said industrial dispute." The Commissioner
of Labour was requested to send copies of the order to the
managements of cinema talkies concerned. It was held there
that " the reference to the Tribunal under s. 10 (1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be held to be invalid
merely because it did not specify the disputes or the
parties between whom the disputes arose ". It was further
held that " the Government must, of course, have sufficient
knowledge of the nature of the dispute to be satisfied that
it is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act,
as, for instance, that it relates to retrenchment or
reinstatement. But, beyond this no obligation can be held
to lie on the Government to ascertain particulars of the
disputes before making a reference under s. 10(1) or to
specify them in the
order."
The present reference as compared to the reference in that
case cannot be called vague at all. Here the parties to the
dispute are clearly specified, namely, (1) the management of
the hotel, and (ii) its workmen. The nature of the dispute
is also specified in, the terms of reference. It was in our
opinion entirely unnecessary to ’mention in the order of
reference as to who were the workmen who were responsible
for the dispute. We are therefore of opinion that this
attack on the ground of vagueness also fails. There is no
force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
to respondent No. 3. In view of the fact that more than
three years have passed since the reference was made, we
trust that the Additional Industrial Tribunal will now
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as it can.
Appeal dismissed.
285