Industrial Dispute vs Individual

dispute
Sec 2 (k)
Any dispute /difference between employers and
employers,employer and workmen and
Workmen and workmen
Which is connected to employment/non-employment/terms of
employment /with conditions of labour, of any person.
• Industrial dispute may be
• a collective dispute or
• an individual dispute.
• Collective dispute -Industrial dispute becomes a collective
dispute when such dispute
• is a real and substantial dispute or difference relating to an
industry
• arises between a group of employers or between
employers and workmen, or between a group of workmen
• is connected with the employment or non-employment or
the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor, of
any person
• Individual dispute refers to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment of a single
workman.
• Prior to amend 2A– An individual dispute is an industrial dispute only if backed by
group of workmen or a union otherwise it is only an individual dispute.

• Individual Dispute [Section 2A]: Individual dispute refers to dismissal, discharge,

retrenchment of a single workman even if no other workman or any union of
workmen is a party to the dispute.- 1965 Amend.
• Whether it has prospective effect /retrospective effect courts observation.
• It said as prospective arised after 1965 and referred also after 1965.
• In Surendra Mohan Mitra vs Republic Engineering corporation Ltd AIR ,1970 CAL
482-where an individual dispute originated before amendment act came into force
and was in existence at the time of commencement of the Act the provisions of
Sec 2A are applicable.
• In Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation vs Presiding officer AIR 1978
SC 978.laid down that Sec 2A governs a dispute with reference to dismissal which
has been effected prior to incorporation of Sec 2A.
• Existence of industrial disppute.
• Divergence opinion of court –
• on issue whether a mere demand to appropriate
government /to concialiation officer without a
dispute being raised by the workmen with the
employer regarding such demand an industrial
dispute?
• SC in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd vs
Industrial Tribunal 1968 LLJ 834–said it is not
industrial dispute.
• Prior to Sindhu resettlement case -SC in Bombay
Union of Journalists vs the Hindu –AIR 1963 SC
318-
• Held that industrial dispute must be in existence
on the date of reference.
• Even if the demand was not made earlier before
the management and is raised at the time of
reference/during conciliation prooceedings the
dispute may be industrial dispute.
• Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd-
1984 ,4 ,SCC 392 –
• Govt of Maharashtra referred a dispute between Hindustan
lever Ltd and its workmen to industrial tribunal.
• Preliminary objection by employers –reference was
incompetant .
• Industrial tribunal said not an industrial dispute.
• On appeal SC- Set aside the award- observed
• that expression industrial dispute has been widely defined
as not to leave anything out of its comprehension and
purview involving the area of conflict that may develop
between employer and workmen and in respect of which a
compulsory adjudication may not be available.
• Parties to industrial dispute-should have direct and
substantial interest – dimakuchi tea estate case
• does not include –
• disputes between government and an industrial
establishment.
• Between workmen and non-workmen.
• Dispute between employers and employers may arise
in respect of wage matters in an area where labour is
scarce .
• Dispute between workmen and workmen –disputes
between them either directly or through their trade
unions.
• Subject matter of dispute-to be in connection with
employment/non-employment terms of employment / with
conditions of labour, of any person.
• Interpretation-
• Term ‘conditions of labour’ is wide enough to include ‘terms of
employment’ as well as matters connected with unemployment.
• It refers to conditions of service and the amenities provided/to be
provided-hours of work,holidays,leave,health,safety and welfare of
labour.
• Term ‘Terms of employment’- include certain matters relating to
employment/non-employment. Basic wages,DA,wages on
promotion/demotion ,wages for overtime ,wages for work on
holiday,bonus,recovery of wages,retiral benefits-pension
,PF,gratuity etc.
• ‘in connection with’ widens the scope of ‘industrial dispute’
• Term ‘Employment’ – contract of service between employer and
employed.
• Three ingredients –
• Employer,
• Employee
• Contract of employment.
• Term ‘unemployment’- dispute of workmen which arise out of
service with their employers – includes termination of service
either voluntary/by act of parties- i.e
discharge,dismissal,retrenchment, compulsory retirement-
suspension, lay off,compulsory leave,lockout ,strike etc.
• Includes in its scope arising out of unemployment-reinstatement,re-
employment,compensation,back wages for wrongful termination of
service.
• Subject matter also covers –
• Alteration of conditions of service of employees.
• Demand for modification of standing orders.
• Disputes regarding contract labour.
• Disputes on lock out indisguise of closure.
• Disputes of workmen whose cases are unsettled.
• Transfer of workmen from one place to another.
• Workmen of Hindustan Levers Ltd vs
Hindustan Levers-1984 Lab IC 1573
• A question arose whether a demand for
confirmation in the promoted post would be a
dispute connected with the terms of
employment or conditions of labour u/2k.
• SC- It is industrial dispute because it is
connected with conditions of employment.
• Origin of dispute-– any person interpretation.
• Assam Chai Karamchari sangh vs Dimakuchi tea estate case , AIR 1958 SC 353-
• Banerjee a medical officer appointed by tea estate on 3 months probation.
• After 3 months services terminated after paying one month salary and notice.
• Legality of termination questioned cause raised by workers union.
• Govt of Assam referred dispute to Industrial tribunal about reinstatement.
• Management said tribunal has no jurisdiction.
• Tribunal upheld management plea.
• On appeal SC –question is whether workmen can raise the ID regarding
termination of medical officer who was not workman of tea estate.
• Court explained the term ‘Any person’- that person should have direct and
substantial interest. If no interest existing dispute is not real dispute but workmen
as a class should have substantial interest.
• Court said medical officer is not workmen because he could not be held to have
any community of interest with the other members of the union to justify the ID
being raised with regard to his unemployment.
 Any person
• Standard Vaccum Refining Co of India Ltd vs
Their workmen-AIR 1960 SC 948-
• Regular workmen of the company raised an ID
relating to contract labour.
• Low wages and no security of tenure.
• Regular workmen wanted contract labour to be
abolished and contractors to be considered as
workmen.
• SC –held it as ID- as they had community interest
and substantial interest in the subject matter of
the dispute of contract workers.
 Any person
• Bombay union of journalists vs The Hindu-AIR 1963 SC 318.
• Cause of a working journalist was taken up by a trade
union of his profession but not by other journalists of that
branch in which he was employed.
• SC –deciding on scope of any person how the test direct
and substantial control can be applied.
• The principle that the persons who seek to support the
cause of workmen must themselves be directly and
substantially interested in the dispute.
• Observed that persons who are not employees of the
same employer cannot be regarded as so interested that
by their support they may convert an individual dispute
into an industrial dispute.
 Any person scope
• All India Reserve Bank Employees Association vs
Reserve Bank of India AIR 1966 SC 305
• SC coined a word ‘vitally interested’ to
determine ‘any person scope’.
• Question whether class III workmen can raise
dispute regarding Class II who are not workmen.
• SC held –workmen cannot take up a dispute in
respect of employees who are not workmen.
• No direct interest of their own.
• Workmen vs Greaves Cotton Ltd 1971,2 LLJ,
479,SC-
• It was held that non workmen as well as
workmen
• can raise a dispute in respect of matter
affecting their employment/conditions of
service
• where they have a community of interest,
provided they are direct and not remote.
 Individual dispute
• Whether an dispute between individual workman and
his employer be an ‘industrial dispute’ under 2K.
• D.N.Banerjee vs P.R.Mukherjee 1953,1LLJ,195 SC-
discussed scope of industrial dispute in the context of
individual dispute.-
• dispute should be such that it affect large groups of
workmen. .but in modern society a single employees
case might develop into industrial dispute ,when taken
up by a trade union of which he is a member and there
is concerted demand for redressal by them.
• Newspapers Ltd vs State Industrial Tribunal-1957, 2 LLJ, 1 SC-
• Typist removed from service on ground of incompetence.
• His case was neither taken up by union of workers of establishment
nor by allied/similar trade.
• His case was taken up by UP working journalists union, with which
employee had no concern.
• Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal which
ordered reinstatement.
• Appellate tribunal and HC affirmed.
• Management appealled to SC
• SC observed- typist cannot be called workmen nor could the case
be nor could UP journalists be called his union nor any indication
that individual dispute had been transformed into ‘industrial
dispute’.
• Bombay Union of Journalists vs. The Hindu-AIR ,1963,SC 318.
• Dispute of workmen taken up by the Bombay union of journalists of
which union workmen was a member.
• Bombay union of journalists was a union not of emplyees of one
establishment but of entire industry of journalism of bombay.
• None of the employees of the Hindu were its members.
• Industrial tribunal held the dispute was merely an individual dispute
and not an industrial dispute.
• SC affirmed the decision held – it is invidual dispute inorder t be
industrial dispute it should be taken up by the employees of ‘
Hindu’ bombay.
• Court relied on the decision of dimakuchi tea estate on ground that
there should be real dispute capable of settlement and parties to
dispute should have direct and substantial interest
• Workmen of Indian express Ltd vs Management of Indian Express
Ltd, 1970 ,2 LLJ,132 SC.
• Question arose whether the cause of two workmen in a particular
establishment in an industry could be sponsored by delhi union of
working journalists, which was not union of workmen of the
establishment but a union in similar/allied trade.
• SC observed-
• where the workmen of the establishment have no union of their
own and some or all of them joined a un ion of another
establishment belonging t same industry , if such union takes up the
cause the dispute could be industrial dispute if the union can claim
a representative character in a way that it supports would make
the dispute industrial dispute.
• The following tests are applied by Courts in determining as when an individual
dispute becomes industrial dispute.
• 1. if the cause of the aggrieved workmen is taken up by appreciable number of
workmen or the union of workmen( whether
registered/unregistered/recognized/unrecognized/majority /minority
union)immateial.
• In the absence of any union of workmen by union of similar trade/allied trade
and there is concerted demand by the workmen for redress.
• 2. if the workmen, supporting it have community interest and are
directly/substantially interested in the employment/non-employment/terms of
employment/conditions of labour of the concerned workmen.
• 3. if such an interest on the part of workman/substantial number of workmen
exists on date of reference and need not necessarily exist on the date on which
the cause occurred.
• 4. A dispute would not cease to be an industrial dispute on subsequent support
/withdrawal of a cause of individual dispute previously supported by a
workmen/union.
 Sec 2 A
• Before insertion of sec 2A-
• An individual workman who was
discharged/dismissed/retrenched/terminated/tra
nsferred/suspended /punished had no remedy
under ID Act unless his case was sponsored by his
fellow workmen / by trade union.
• No alternative but to appraoch civil court for
expensive and lengthy procedure.
• Insertion of Sec 2A- now individual dispute is
industrial dispute eventhugh not backed by
appreciable number of workmen/union.
• Sec 2 A covers only dispute –limited scope-
discharge/dismissal/retrenchment
/termination.
• It does not cover disputes such as bonus,
wages,leave facilities etc. even
transfer/promotion /punishment.
• Demand to enlarge the scope .
• Attempt made and scope widened in
Industrial relations bill 1978- bill lapsed.
• Term –connected with or arising out of discharge
/dismissal /retrenchment/termination- scope of sec
2A- any dispute relating to above between employer
and workmen connected with /arising out of
dismissal/discharge/retrenchment/termination will be
deemed to be industrial dispute. JLN Pradhan vs
Industrial tribunal, 1977 1 LLJ 36 Orissa
• Arise out of another means when there is close nexus
between the two and one thing flows out of another as
a consequence. Machinnon Machenzie co vs LM Lassk
1970 1 LLJ 16 SC.
• Constitutionality of Sec 2A challenged by
management- that parliament had no pwer to
convert individual dispute into industrial
dispute – 1965 amendment to be struck down
as violative of Art 14.
• Delhi,punjab,haryana, madras and mysore
high courts upheld the validity of sec 2A.
• Cal HC- declared to be ultravires.
• SC- upheld the validity .
• Whether retrospective/prospective?
• SC in Rustom and Hornsby p Ltd vs T.B Kadam-
no question of giving retrospective as it is
interpreted as industrial dispute only in
certain circumstances.
• Eventhough the facts giving rise to dispute
might have arisen before the reference was
made the dispute still valid.
• Amendment of sec 2A -2010 Amendment-
Recommendations of Second NCL .
• Inserted new clauses (2)(3) in sec 2A-
• Notwithstanding anything contained in sec 10-
• any such workman as is specified in cl (1) may make an
application direct to labour court /tribunal for adjudication
of the dispute after expiry of 45 days from the date he has
made application to the conciliation officer of the
appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute.
• in receipt of such application LC/Tribunal have powers to
adjudicate the dispute as if the app govt had referred the
matter.
• Cl (3)- the application made to LC/Tribunal to
be made before expiry of 3 years from the
date of
discharge/dismissal/retrenchment/terminatio
n of service.
• Differences between Individual Dispute and Industrial Dispute
• Individual Dispute
• Industrial Dispute
• Individual dispute- Prior to insertion of Section 2-A of the Act, an
individual dispute could not per se be an industrial dispute. According to
the Act it is evident that the applicability of the Act to an individual
dispute as opposed to dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded
unless it acquires the general characteristics of an industrial dispute.
• Industrial Dispute -Section 2(k) of the Act speaks about a dispute between
an employer and workmen i.e. plural form is used.
• Individual Dispute -Section 2-A is of limited application and does not
declare all individual disputes to be industrial disputes.
• Industrial Dispute-A dispute that is related to a workman who has been
dismissed, discharged, retrenched or terminated can be termed as a
industrial dispute.
• In case the dispute is related to any other matter than dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or
termination - then it is necessary that it satisfies the test laid down in many judgments to be called
as industrial dispute.
• Industrial Dispute - Action has wider application.
• A dispute is usually treated as individual dispute, when it is not supported by any Union or majority
of workmen are not a party to the dispute.
• Only a collective dispute can be termed as an Industrial dispute. Again a collective dispute does not
mean that the dispute should compulsorily be sponsored by a recognized union or that all or
majority of the workmen of an industry should be party to it.
• A dispute is an industrial dispute even where it is sponsored by a union which is not registered. But
the trade union must be one unconnected with a union which is not registered.
• Where an individual dispute is espoused by trade union, the question of the employee being a
member of the union when the cause arose is immaterial.
• For an individual dispute, ‘collective will’ is not present and it is a dispute where only the workman
concerned is in dispute with the employer.
• For an industrial dispute, there should be some expression of ‘collective will’ of substantial or
appreciable number of workmen taking up the cause of the aggrieved workman.