SIVASUBRAHMANYAM T S Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises of consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the order of the Government, refusing to refer the dispute in this case for adjudication on the ground that it is not an "industrial dispute " as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is one passed without Jurisdiction.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are these. Petitioner 1 was employed as a fitter in the Tondiarpet installation of the Barman-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd. , respondent 2, herein. Petitioner is a member of petitioner 2 union. The union is a registered one recognized by the management. That union is formed for the workers of the various companies dealing in kerosene-oil storages and distribution. It is (sic) from the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 1, Government, that out of 810 workers in respondent 2 establishment only 66 were members of the petitioner 2 union. In 1963, petitioner 1 was chargesheeted for theft of certain articles in the installation. After a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Thereupon, petitioner 2 union raised an industrial dispute in regard to the non-employment of petitioner 1. The labour officer held conciliation proceedings, and reported to Government that there was no possibility of a settlement through conciliation. The Government considered the report of the conciliation officer. It was also raported to Government that the union did not have sufficient representative capacity to raise the demand. The Governmemt were of the opinion that an industrial dispute did not exise, and therefore did not make a reference for adjudication. This petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to refer the dispute raised on behalf of petitioner 1 by petitioner 2 union for adjudication unite Section 10 (1) of the Act.

(3.) AS to what constitutes "industrial dispute," there has been route controversy and conflict of opinion among the various High Courts. In 1953, in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee 1958-I L. L. J. 195 their lordships of the Supreme Court had an occasion to discuss the meaning of the expression " industrial dispute" and were of the opinion that a single employee's case might develop into an industrial dispute when it was taken by a trade union of which he was a member and there was concerned demand by the employees for redress. In Central Provinces Transport Services v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan 1957-1 L. L. J. 27 his lordship Venkatarama Ayyer, J. , observed (at p. 30): The question whether a dispute by an individual workman would be an industrial dispute at defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act 14 of 1947 has evoked considerable conflict of opinion both in the High Courts and in industrial tribunals and three different views have been expressed thereon: