AIR FRANCE Vs. K KOTVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Miss Kotval was an employee of the appellant, Air France, who was dismissed by an order dated december 30, 1963. On the 5th August, 1934, the Government of West Bengal, by an order under section 10 (1) of the industrial Disputes Act, referred the question as to the validity of the dismissal of the respondent as an industrial dispute to be adjudicated by the third Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. An extract of that order can be found at annexure 'f' to the paper-book. It is stated in the order of reference that the dispute was one between M/s Air france and "their workmen represented by the 'aero Employees' Union, west Bengal, No. 2 Gate, Calcutta Air port. Bebore the tribunal, the two parties who filed written statements and conducted the case were the said union of the Company, that is, M/s Air france and the respondent. The learned Tribunal concluded that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue under reference or to give any relief whatsoever to the concerned workman Miss Kotval (page 54 of the paper-book) and accordingly, disposed of the reference as not maintainable in law. The reason why it refused to exercise jurisdiction was that it was not an 'industrial dispute' as defined in section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, inasmuch as it was a dispute between the employer and a single workman, namely, the respondent. It was conceded before the Tribunal that

(2.) RELYING upon this admission and referring to the case laws as they then existed, the tribunal laid down the following principle at page 51 of the paper book "a dispute between an employer and a single workman is not per se an industrial dispute, but it may become one if taken up by a number of workmen or by a Union representing the workmen. " The Tribunal's; attention having been drawn to section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act which had been introduced into the Act by amendment of 1965, the Tribunal held that that section was not retrospective in its operation and, therefore, could not convert what was an individual dispute into an 'industrial dispute' by applying that section with retrospective effect. In substance, the conclusion of the Tribunal was that under the law as it existed before insertion of section 2a into the Act, the dismissal of the respondent was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute as mentioned in section 2 (K) of the Act, and in that view the Tribunal refused to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it by the Government. As against this award of the industrial tribunal a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was presented by the respondent, that is, Miss Kotval herself, in which application the said union was made a party respondent, before mitra, J. , of this Court, on the 17th february, 1969. His Lordship dealt with three questions raised before him.

(3.) ON the question of section 2a being retrospective he rejected the contention as raised on behalf of the respondent but, nevertheless, upon reference to the later decisions of the supreme Court, particularly the decision in the case of (1) Workmen v. M/s. Dharam Pal, A. I. R. 1966 SC 182, Mitra, j. , came to the opinion that even before the insertion of section 2a by the amendment of 1965, the law was that even a dispute affecting particular workmen could be sponsored as an industrial dispute under section 2 (K), if the employees of a particular company had no Union of their own and the cause of the employees of that company was sponsored by a Union of workmen engaged in a similar industry.