(1.) THE petitioner is a workman employed by the 2nd respondent. THE petitioner along with the Deputy Secretary of the trade union sent a representation under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer at Chennai 108. THE dispute was with reference to the minor penalty, namely postponement of two years increment imposed on the petitioner, vide order dated 17.1.1996.
(2.) ON notice from the Conciliation Officer, the 2nd respondent State owned Transport Corporation filed Objection statement dated 19.12.2011 objecting to the maintainability of such a dispute. Apart from the merits of the case, the Corporation held that the dispute was not maintainable. It was thereafter, when the Conciliation Officer wanted to know whether there was any espousal by other workers in supporting the case of the petitioner so as to convert the dispute of an individual dispute into collective dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act, he wanted the documents relating to the trade union regarding membership, minutes book and the resolution in support of the petitioner as well as the subscription vouchers showing the total membership.
(3.) IN this context, it has to be seen for the purpose of treating an individual dispute into collective dispute, it requires espousal of his case by the other workers and there must be a substantial consent of the workers supporting his case, without which individual dispute cannot be elevated to that of a collective dispute. Under Section 2(A)of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947, a worker can raise a dispute only with reference to his dismissal, retrenchment or any other cases of termination. Since admittedly the present case is only against a minor penalty imposed, in order to convert such a dispute, the petitioner will have to show that he has the support of other workers.