MESSRS. WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD., CLUTTERBUCKGANJ Vs. WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO., WORKERS UNION, CLUTTERBUCKGANJ, BAREILLY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Varma, J. dated 3-3-1966, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and quashing the order of the Labour Court dated 22-3-1965 which had found that the dispute between the parties was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) There is no controversy about the preliminary facts. Respondent No, 3, C.S. Scott, was appointed as a Foreman on May 9, 1956 on six months probation with the appellant company M/s. Western India Match Company Ltd., Clutterbuckganj, Bareilly, hereinafter referred to WIMCO or the company. His probationary period was, however, extended from time to time and later on he was transferred to the Labour Office. By means of their letter dated 29-5-1967 the Company terminated the services of C. S. Scott, respondent. The matter was taken up by the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly and was registered as ease No. 83 (B)/1957, but no conciliation could be arrived at. The matter was then referred to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur but the State Government considered it inexpedient to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. This gave rise to civil misc. Writ No. 1469 of 1959 challenging the decision of the State Government in refusing to make a reference to the Labour Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the matter was entirely within the discretion of the State Government. Thereafter fresh representations were made to the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court. Ultimately by notification dated 28-8-1963, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court which was registered as Adjudication case No. 140 of 1963. But the Labour Court rejected the reference on 22-3-1865 on the ground that there was no industrial dispute. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed civil misc. writ No. 3252 of 1965 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge: hence this appeal by the company.

(3.) The main point involved in the instant appeal is whether there was an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. The words 'industrial dispute have been defined in S. 2 (l) of the Act. But this definition does not very much help to resolve the controversy between the parties. The first question is, when does a private or individual dispute between the workman and his employers become an industrial dispute ? On this subject there is only judge-made law, e.g. it has consistently been held that it the individual dispute between a workman and his employers has been sponsored by the trade union of the industry, it becomes an industrial dispute. The next question which follows is as to at what stage such sponsoring should be done by the union. The last question is whether the employee concerned should have already been a member of the sponsoring trade union on the date of his dismissal or on the date of sponsoring or on the date of a reference made by the State Government. All these matters are again mainly dependent upon the case law.