MATHUR AVIATION Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17th August, 1972, under Sections 10 (1) (d) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi of an industrial dispute said to exist between the management of M/s. Mathur Aviation and its workman Captain Narinder Singh. The terms of the reference set out in the schedule were: 1. Whether the termination of Services of Captain Narinder Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?

(2.) WHETHER the workman is entitled to Bonus for 1969-70, 1970-71, T. A. /d. A. , spray charges, etc. and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect? A number of preliminary objections were taken before the Industrial Tribunal as to the maintainability of the reference which led to the framing of the following preliminary issues: 1. Whether Capt. Narinder Singh is a 'workman' or not? 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction or not to entertain this claim? 3. Whether the dispute is an industrial dispute or not? 4, Whether any valid demand notice was served on the management or not? 5. Whether the establishment is covered or not under the payment of Bonus Act? On 28th August, 1973, when these objections were considered, the management did not press the objections giving rise to Issues Nos. 2 to 5, which meant that only the question whether Capt. Narinder Singh was a workman or not was adjudicated upon. On the evidence, the Tribunal observed: the main duties of Captain Narinder Singh as an employee of M/s. Mathur Aviation, were those of a pilot required to fly the aircrafts of the employer for carrying out aerial spray of standing crops. . . . After dealing with some of the evidence which was to the effect that Capt. Narinder Singh was also carrying on certain other duties in a supervisory capacity as far as the staff under his control was concerned, the Tribunal held that this administrative control was only incidental to the main duties of Capt. Narinder Singh as a pilot. It was also held: For all these reasons, I hold that Captain Narinder Singh was employed by M/s. Mathur Aviation as a Pilot to fly its aircrafts on various aerial spraying assignments. In other words he was employed to do skilled technical work for hire. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that he is a workman, as defined in Section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the present writ petition was instituted in this Court on 22nd October, 1973. the Admission Bench passed the following order: He is advised to urge before the Addl. Ind. Tribunal the points re. jurisdiction, etc. , and to seek its decision on them first. We shall await it. As a result of this direction, a farther application was again moved before the industrial Tribunal, which led to another order being passed on 16th November, 1973. At that stage, it was pleaded that Issues Nos. 2 and 3 had not been conceded and, in fact, were inter-connected with Issue No. 1. It was also sought in the fresh application to raise some further pleadings to the effect that an individual dispute could not be referred in respect of bonus, T. A/d. A. , etc. , under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the new point taken up was that the second subject-matter of reference, i. e. , bonus, spray charges, T. A. /d. A. , etc. , could not be referred for adjudication under Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the Tribunal held: It is apparent on the face of it that such a dispute is not an industrial dispute and, therefore. this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate, upon it. It was on the realisation of this fact that Shri Ramesh Pathak learned representative on behalf of the workman made a statement on November 9,1973, conceding that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter in so far as issue 2 of the reference is concerned. I may, therefore, straightaway hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on term No 2 of the order of reference. It was then stated: Shri Hasija has not cared to enter appearance to-day and show as to how term 1 is inseparable from term 2 of the order of reference. One relates to termination of service and relief, if any, arising there from, and the other relates to entirely a different subject, i. e. , bonus T. A. /d. A. and spray charges, etc. There is nothing in common between these two terms. Term I can be adjudicated upon without touching in any manner upon terra 2 and vice versa. I would hold accordingly. Thus, the result of the Tribunal's second order was that term No. 2 was held to be outside the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal

(3.) THE question for decision in the present case is whether the reference can be held to be bad by this Court in this case. It is necessary to refer to Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, which says: 2a. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of. such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. The purpose of this Section was to include within the scope of industrial disputes, certain disputes which were previously classified as individual disputes. The limitation contained in the Section regarding such references is that the dispute should be connected with the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the services of the workman. There is no doubt that the question whether the termination of the services of Capt. Narinder Singh is illegal is within the scope of this Section. It can equally be said, that by itself, the question relating to the payment of bonus, T. A. /d. A. , spray charges, etc. , is not within the scope of this section. However, the validity of the order is not to be determined in this manner, because the body of the order says: Whereas from a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, Delhi under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it appears that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Mathur Aviation 1989, Defence Colony. New Delhi-24 and its workman Captian Narinder Singh. D-58, Defence Colony, New Delhi- 4. And whereas on an consideration of the said report, the Lt. Governor, Delhi is satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the said parties and that the same should be referred to a Tribunal. These words in the order show that the Government was of the view that there was an industrial dispute It cannot be denied that the legality of the termination of the services of Capt Narinder Singh (assuming him to be a workman, raises an industrial dispute and thus the appropriate Government was not wrong in coming to the view that an industrial dispute existed. The requirements of Section 10 are stated in the opening words of that Section. They can be reproduced with advantage: 10. (1 ). Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time. by order in writing, (a ). . . (b ). . . (c ). . . (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication. Thus, the Section proceeds on the basis that if there is an industrial dispute, the dispute together with any inter-connected matter may be referred to a Tribunal.