AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—Certain of the workmen of Messrs. Wilfred Pereira Limited are members of the Madras Commercial and General Workers
Union. This union sponsored two industrial disputes and the State Government referred the disputes for adjudication by the Labour Court. The
references in question relate to the revision of basic wages and dearness allowance, bonus for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61, refixation of
superannuation and retrenchment of eleven workers of the company. Since, however, only some of the workers of Wilfred Pereira, Limited were
members of the union referred to, the other employees of the company, 33 in number, formed themselves into an association with a view to
safeguard and promote the interests of the workmen of the company. This association applied for registration under the Trade Unions Act. This
association, thereafter, sought to get itself impleaded as a party to the industrial disputes to enable it to place before the Labour Court its views and
to make other representations in connection with the question referred. It is alleged that the other Union appears to have objected, but no copy of
the counter-affidavit of that union was furnished to the Petitioner association. The application for impleading the association was kept pending for a
considerable time, and finally the Labour Court made an order dismissing the application without calling for any evidence or holding any enquiry. It
is this order refusing to permit the association to participate in the adjudication proceedings, though the association is composed of a substantial
number of workmen of Wilfred Pereira, Limited, that is attacked in these writ petitions. It is urged that the Labour Court acted without jurisdiction
in refusing to satisfy itself of the representative character of the association. The reason given by the Labour Court that no claim of any kind had
been put forward by the association as justifying the refusal to-implead is also attacked, as the stage of making representations with regard to
matters in dispute could arise only after the Petitioner association had been impleaded. It is claimed that the body of workers represented by the
association has a vital interest in the matters in dispute and that the refusal to permit them to participate in the enquiry is against the principles
governing industrial adjudication.
Two petitions have been filed, for the matter relates to two references-ordered by the Government.
The first Respondent, which consists of the workmen who are represented by the Madras Commercial and General Workers Union, in its
counter-affidavit; claims that a substantial number of workmen of Wilfred Pereira, Limited are members of this Union. It is stated that this union has
taken an active interest in the improvement of the conditions of work of the workers of Wilfred Pereira, Limited and that the union has a right to
represent the workers. It is alleged that the Petitioner association was not in existence at the time of the reference and that this association has been
brought into existence for the purpose of delaying the progress of the enquiry before the Labour Court. It is also vaguely suggested that the
Petitioner association is a creature of the company. In any event, it is claimed that since any award resulting from the adjudication will be to the
benefit of all the workers, including those of the association, the Petitioner association is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the two disputes.
The Petitioner association states that it started with a membership of 33 and that it has 43 members on its rolls on the date of filing these writ
petitions Mr. R. Ramamurthi Iyer, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, says that the membership has further increased. It is also claimed that there
was a delay in the registration of the Association under the Trade Unions Act, but such registration has been since granted. But Mr. Ramamurthi
Iyer points out that it is not necessary that the workmen should form themselves into an association or a union and get themselves registered for the
purpose of enabling them to put forward a dispute or to participate in a dispute. That position is not controverted by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent The short question is whether the Labour Court was right in refusing to permit the Petitioner association to participate in the enquiry or
to put forward such representations as it might desire to make with regard to the conditions of service, bonus, etc.
The Labour Court has not to my mind dealt with the matter properly. After setting out the contents of the petitions of the Petitioner and the
counter of the Respondent, the Labour Court merely states that it has considered the matter and has decided to dismiss all the petitions. The
reasons given are that the Petitioner association was not in existence on the date of the references and that it has not yet been registered as a trade
union. The Labour Court observes that the adjudication of the disputes will not in any way be prejudicial to the workers and that the benefits, if
any, awarded on the general demands will enure to the benefit of all the workers. It also states that there was no indication as to what the
association proposed to say by way of statements in the disputes. Without any material in support, the Labour Court further took the view that the
petitions have been filed only at the instance of the management to place impediments in the adjudication of the disputes by that Court. It also
thought that the interests of the workers were safe in the hands of the General Union which has raised the disputes.
It seems to me that the matter has not been approached from the proper angle. That there is an industrial dispute is beyond question. An
industrial dispute is a dispute which is sponsored by a substantial number of workers. Even an individual dispute can take on the complexion of an
industrial dispute provided the cause of the individual worker is supported by a substantial number of workmen interested. In contrast with the
statement of the Petitioner association that 43 of the workmen of Wilfred Pereira, Limited are members of that Association, the General and
Commercial Workers Union, which started the disputes, has not chosen to commit itself as to the number of workmen of Wilfred Pereira, Limited
who are members of that Union. On my directions, an affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner association giving details of its membership the
Respondent union has not done so. It has also been stated that the registration of the General Union has since been cancelled. Mr. Ramamurthi
Iyer has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Manager, Hotel Imperial Vs. The Chief Commissioner and Others, . Their Lordships
observe, in dealing with the objection that the order of reference did not indicate how many of the workers of different categories were involved in
the dispute and for that reason the reference was incompetent, thus:
The fact remains that the dispute which was referred for adjudication was between the employer, viz., the Management of the Hotel, and its
employees, who were mentioned as its workmen. The addition of the words as represented by the Hotel Workers'' Union...was merely for the
sake of convenience so that the Tribunal may know to whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the reference. That however did
not preclude the workmen, if they wanted to be represented by any other Union, to apply to the Tribunal for such representation, or even to apply
for being made parties individually. Section 36 of the Act provides a workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any
proceedings under the Act by (a) an officer of a trade union of which he is a member, or (b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the
trade union of which he is a member is affiliated, or (c) where the workmen is not a member of any trade union, by an officer of any trade union
connected with, or by any other workmen employed in, the industry in which the workman is employed.
These observations show that notwithstanding that a union may represent certain workers the other workmen have a right to be represented by
some other union or even to appear individually. In an industrial dispute, though the dispute is raised by a certain number of workmen, the resultant
award binds All the workmen under the same employer, and if the remaining workmen feel that the dispute in question requires further and better
representations, I fail to see how the workmen, who would be ultimately bound by the award, can be refused such opportunity. Section 36, it will
be noticed, does not say that the workers shall be represented only by the registered trade unions. It is an enabling provision, as has been pointed
out by the Supreme Court, and is put in for the purpose of securing the proper service upon a representative union, for, otherwise, each worker
will have to be served individually.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon Ram Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, . That also dealt with the
representation of parties. The dispute was one which related to an individual workman which was espoused by a union of which he was a member.
The question arose whether, at a later stage, the concerned workman could ask for a representative of his choice, on the ground that he had lost
faith in the union which was conducting his case, and whether the workman could be considered to be a party in his own right and independently of
the union. It was pointed out in this decision that an industrial dispute was a case of collective bargaining. A dispute between an individual
workman and the employer could not be an industrial dispute unless it is taken up by the union of workmen or by a considerable number of
workmen. It followed, therefore, that an individual workman is at no stage a party to the industrial dispute independantly of the union. It was only
because of the union espousing the cause of the worker that the individual dispute became, converted into an industrial dispute. The learned
Judges, however, observed:
While it will be unwise and indeed impossible to try to lay down a general rule in the matter, the ordinary rule should, in our opinion, be that such
representation by an officer of the trade-union should continue throughout the proceedings in the absence of exceptional circumstances which may
justify the Tribunal to permit other representation of the workman concerned.
that is to say, that in proper cases, in order to give effect to the principle that a party to a dispute should be given a fair hearing, it would be open to
the Labour Court to permit him to be represented otherwise than by the union. Learned Counsel for the Respondent relies upon this decision and
his endeavour is to show that since the industrial dispute is started by sponsorship of the General Union, it is not open to any of the workers,
whether those at whose instance the dispute was started or their workmen under the same employer, to seek to be represented by any other union.
I disagree that this is what their Lordships laid down. What the effect of this decision is that an individual dispute has become an industrial dispute
by being sponsored by a trade union. The individual workers is not, generally speaking, at liberty to discard representation by the trade union,
which, in effect would mean that it is no longer an industrial dispute but an individual dispute. But, in a case where there is another union composed
of a body of workmen under the same employer, the dispute, though started by a different union, can certainly be carried on by the other union.
The complexion of the industrial dispute does not alter. The earlier decision of the Supreme Court referred to also points out that the entire body of
workmen can individually be parties to the dispute. The dispute does not become an individual dispute for that reason.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent suggests that it is not necessary for the Petitioner association to be impleaded, as it is open to the workers
as a body to make representations even without being brought on record as parties; I feel, however, that since the association has become a
registered union, it is desirable that it should be on record eo nomine.
I am accordingly of the opinion that the Labour Court was not justified in refusing the Petitioner association to be brought on record. The
Petitioner association has a right to be heard and the refusal of that right is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order is accordingly
quashed. There will be no order as to costs.