BHARAT GLASS FACTORY Vs. M P VIDYARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm doing the business of glass manufacture at Naini, in the district of Allahabad. Respondent 2 was in service of the petitioner on a salary of Rs. 100 per mensem in addition to travelling allowance when going out of station. A copy of the letter of his appointment has been filed, which shows that the petitioner was appointed as an accountant-clerk with effect from 22 July 1950. The petitioner's case is that respondent 2 was in its employment only till June 1951, after which he started another firm at Banaras and then he was working with Bharat Glass Agencies, Banaras. It is said in February 1952, the respondent 2 again joined the petitioner's service and worked till 17 March 1952, when he suddenly stopped the petitioner's work and joined Tribeni Glass Works, Naini, a rival concern. The case of respondent 2 is that he continued in service of the petitioner from July 1950 till 30 March 1952. when his services were dispensed with. He says that he then made a demand for certain dues which the petitioner was not prepared to pay. On 28 May 1952, the respondent 2 sent a letter to the regional conciliation officer saying that the petitioner firm had employed him and there was an agreement for the payment of certain amenities like conveyance allowance and compensation for work on Sundays, but on 30 March the petitioner terminated his services without any reason and without giving any notice, and that the said respondent had asked the petitioner to settle his accounts, but it paid no heed to this. He claimed commission on sales, conveyance allowance, sunday allowance and a month's salary in lieu of notice, and the approximate total of the dues, according to him, was Rs. 1,000. On 24 November the respondent sent another communication to the regional conciliation board giving the details of top amounts due to him, and the entire sum claimed on this date was Rs. 1,720. A third claim was submitted on 25 March 1953, in which the claim made on 24 November was repeated, but the amount of compensation for wrongful dismissal was not specified. The conciliation proceedings proved infructuous and the usual report was sent to the Government. The State Government issued a notification purporting to act under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act on 6 March 1953, referring the dispute for adjudication to Sri M. P. Vidyarthi, respondent 1. The adjudicator fixed 25 March 1953 for the hearing of the case and then adjourned it to 17 April 1953. The present petition was filed on 16 April 1953 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Government notification dated 16 March 1953, and for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings before the. conciliation board.

(3.) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Government had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to an adjudicator because the dispute in the present case was not an industrial dispute. In support of his case he urged two points. His first submission is that the dispute was merely an Individual one and the second is that respondent 2 not being a workman on the date the dispute arose, the dispute could not be called 4n industrial dispute. As regards the first point it does appear that the dispute, as to the amount payable to respondent 2 by the petitioner, has not been taken up by another workman or employee of the petitioner. It has been stated in Para. 15 of the affidavit, filed along with the petition, that no trade union or group of workmen has taken up the case of respondent 2 and the case has no concern in any manner with employment or non-employment of the petitioner. In Para. 13 of the counter affidavit has been stated that the allegations in Para. 15 were not correct and that the dispute between the respondent 2 and the petitioner centred round the illegal dismissal of the former and amounted to victimization of the respondent by the petitioner. There is no assertion anywhere in the counter-affidavit to the effect that any other workman or group of workmen have taken up this dispute on behalf of respondent 2. In this state of evidence, I am inclined to hold that the dispute of respondent 2 with the petitioner has not been taken up by any other workman of the petitioner or any association of workmen. The question is whether, under these circumstances, it can be said that the dispute is an industrial dispute. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act refers back to the definition of the expression "industrial dispute" to the Central Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. In section 2 (k) of the Central Act, the expression "industrial dispute" is defined as under: 'industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen 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. The words used in the definition are very wide, and what they say is that the dispute would be an industrial dispute which is connected with the employment, or non-employment, or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. It further appears that the use of the words "employers," "employees" and "workmen" in plural dots not necessarily mean that the employers or the workmen must be more than one. It is an ordinary rule of interpretation of the statutes that the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. So far, there appears to be no difference between the different High Courts in India, and the High Courts all appear to be agreed that technically speaking, every dispute between a single workman and single employer would come within the definition of the expression, provided it is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or conditions of service. But some of the High Courts have taken the view that looking into the scheme of the Act, and the object with which it was passed, the definition must be confined to those cases where the dispute is between a substantial number of workmen and one or more employers.