AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner is a workman employed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner along with the Deputy Secretary of the trade union sent a
representation u/s 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.
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 u/s 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.
The petitioner gave a letter dated 19.12.2011 stating that the President and Secretary of the trade union refused to give those documents and
also informed that the union is defunct. It is on the basis of the stand of the workman, the Conciliation Officer held that if the case has to be treated
as a collective dispute u/s 2(k) of the Act, then the Act requires substantial support of other workers and therefore he is unable to conciliate that
the dispute raised by the worker against the minor penalty imposed is the dispute which comes under the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. He also stated that without the support of any trade union, he is willing to negotiate the same. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition
came to be filed.
Heard Mr. D.Bharathy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
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. u/s 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.
In fact, until 1965 and before the introduction of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by amending Act 35 of 1965 with effect from
1.12.1965, even case of termination will have to be sponsored by trade union or by other workers collectively with a view to obviate the
difficulties faced by the individual workman facing dismissal at the hands of the management. The Parliament thought note of amending the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and introduced Section 2(A). But Section 2-A only relates to non-employment and not any other dispute,
such as minor penalty faced by the petitioner herein.
The Supreme Court vide its judgment in The Bombay Union of Journalists and Others Vs. The ''Hindu'', Bombay and Another, has held that an
individual dispute may become an industrial dispute and it has to be established that it had been taken up by the Union of employees or by an
appropriate number of employees of the establishment.
In the light of the same, the impugned communication does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs.