FATHIMA HOSPITAL Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a Union espouses the cause of all workmen under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and a settlement has been arrived at on behalf of all the workmen, can an individual workman raise and industrial dispute under Section 2A in his individual capacity, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.

(2.) Third respondent in W.A.No. 1824 of 2006 was working as Maintenance Supervisor in the appellant's hospital. He was member of the second respondent Union. Dispute arose between the Management and the Union concerning the denial of employment to forty workers. Dispute was espoused by the Union and was ultimately referred to the first respondent Tribunal for adjudication. The issue referred for adjudication by the Government as per G.O. (Rt) No. 1093/96/LBR dated 15.4.1996 is extracted below:

(3.) Counsel appearing for the Management, Sri Antony Dominic, and the Union Sri. No. Reghuraj submitted that learned single judge was not justified on holding that the workman has got a right to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Act. counsel also submitted that learned single judge has committed an error in holding that the Tribunal has made an unnecessary observation that the terms of the settlement was fair and reasonable. Counsel for the Union submitted that after holding that the settlement was not fair and reasonable, learned judge was not justified in holding that the workman is entitled to get Rs. 44,400/- as per the settlement. Counsel for the Management in support of the contention placed considerable reliance on the decisions of the apex court in Workman of Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Management (1961) 2 L.L.J. 439) and K. C. P. Limited v. The Presiding Officer and others (1997) 1 L.L.J. 308).