Trade dispute

-Monica Rani
Visiting Faculty
Definition under Section 2(g)
Any dispute between:
 Employers and workmen
 Workmen and workmen, or
 Employers and employers.
It must be in connection with:
 The employment/non-employment/ the terms of
employment/conditions of labour of any person
Section 2(g) also defines workmen:
 All persons employed in trade or industry
 Whether or not in employment of the employer with whom
the trade dispute has arisen.
 The first part obviously refers to the factum of a real or
substantial dispute; apprehended dispute would not be a
trade dispute but may be treated as industrial dispute
under the ID Act.
 the second part to the parties to the dispute; and
 the third, to the subject matter of that dispute.
 That subject matter may relate to any of two matters –
(i) employment or non-employment, and
(ii) terms of employment or conditions of labour, of any
person.
 DN Banerji v P.R. Mukherjee and
Ors. AIR 1953 SC 58
 Indeed 'trade' is not only in the etymological or dictionary
sense, but in the legal usage, a term of the widest scope. It is
connected originally with the word 'tread' and indicates a way
of life or an occupation. In ordinary usage it may mean the
occupation of a small shopkeeper equally with that of a
commercial magnate. It may also mean a skilled craft. It is
true that it is often used in contrast with a profession. A
professional worker would not ordinarily be called a
tradesman, but the word 'trade' is used in the widest manner
regarding the term 'trade unions'.
 The legislature considered the nature, variety and range of
disputes that occurred between employers and employees
while enacting this law. The Court held that the definitions in
our Act also include disputes that might arise between
municipalities and their employees as trade dispute as such
activity could be termed as analogous to the carrying out of a
trade or business.
DN Banerji v P.R. Mukherjee
and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 58
 For example, a philanthropist who acquired a clothing factory and
employed the same employees as the previous owner had
employed would not be engaged in an occupation about which an
industrial dispute could arise, if he distributed the clothes made
to the poor free of charge or even if he distributed them to the
poor at the bare cost of production.

 The Court further stated that, if the contention of the

respondents is correct, a private company carrying on a ferry
would be engaged in an industrial occupation. If a municipal
corporation carried it on, it would not be industrial.

 Thus court held that the dispute between the Municipal

corporation and the workmen concerned was an industrial
dispute.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v The
Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
AIR 1958 SC 353
 In this case one Dr. Banerji was appointed as medical officer by
the Dimakuchi Tea Estate. He was removed from his post by a
letter instantly. Later, his cause was taken up by Assam Chah
Karmachari Sangha. Initially it was alleged that he added
numbers to the medical indent, later he was accused of
incompetency. Afterwards, there was settlement of the issue
between the Estate and Dr. Banerji, meanwhile the Govt. of
Assam referred the case to a tribunal under Sections 7 and 10 of
ID act.
 The issues were, whether the dismissal was justified and if not,
whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other similar
relief.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v
The Management of Dimakuchi Tea
Estate AIR 1958 SC 353
 It was held that Dr. Banerji was not a ‘workman’ under the
Act and therefore the dispute is not covered under the
Industrial Dispute Act.

 Then appeal was made at Labour Appellate Tribunal which

was dismissed. Special leave was granted on the limited
question that “whether a dispute in relation to a person
who is not a workman falls within the scope of the
definition of industrial dispute contained in s. 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” Again this petition was
dismissed as the trade union was not directly and
substantially interested in the dispute.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
v The Management of Dimakuchi
Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353
 The Court held that there was no trade dispute in this
case, as there was no commonality of interest between
the aggrieved and the Trade Union.
 Therefore there was no trade dispute in this case.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
v The Management of Dimakuchi
Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353
 The very wide definition of the word 'workman'
determines the ambit of the definition of a 'trade
dispute' in the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
 The provisions of that Act have different objects in view,
one of which is the expenditure of the funds of a
registered Trade Union “on the conduct of trade
disputes on behalf of the Trade Union or any member
thereof”.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
v The Management of Dimakuchi
Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353
 The Court referred to a foreign case, wherein there was a
trade dispute between the defendant union and the Torbay
Hotel.
 The Torbay Hotel employed workers of the defendant
union. The defendant union claimed that it should be
recognised as having authority to negotiate on their
behalf.
 Torbay Hotel refused to recognise them. The Court opined
that such a recognition dispute is clearly a trade dispute:
see Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Co. Ltd. 1960 1 All ER
274; (1960) AC 132
T.C.C. Thozhilali Union vs T.C.C.
Ltd. (1982) ILLJ 425 Ker
 A trade union, in claiming locus standi to represent its members
in the employment of a management, does so on behalf the
workers who are its members.

 Therefore, where such claim is not accepted by the employer,

and the employer refuses to recognize the union as workers'
representative and bargaining agent, a difference or dispute
arises between the employer, and such of his employees who
are members of the union as bargaining agent.

 When such difference is "connected with the employment, non-

employment, the terms of employment, or with the conditions
of labour, of any person" it is an industrial or trade dispute.
 T.C.C. Thozhilali Union vs T.C.C.
Ltd. (1982) ILLJ 425 Ker

 Facts: The concerned union stated that it was bound to

safeguard the interests of the workers who were its members,
and, therefore, the Union was entitled to participate in the
discussions and deliberations relating to the workers. The
union, therefore, questioned the company's letter of 11th
February, 1980, (Ext. B-4). by which the company informed the
plaintiff-Union that 913 of the company's workmen constituting
94.2% of the total number of its workmen were members of one
or the other of four other unions; that the plaintiff-Union and
the remaining one union between them have got as their
members not more than 5.8% of the total number of the
company's workmen; and that, therefore, these two unions do
not qualify for recognition as per the stipulations in the Code of
Discipline.

 Issue: Whether such dispute was a trade dispute or not?

T.C.C. Thozhilali Union vs T.C.C.
Ltd. (1982) ILLJ 425 Ker

 Holding the dispute as trade dispute, the Court upheld the

decision of the lower court and reemphasized that the
suit brought by the union in respect of the "recognition
dispute" which is a trade dispute cannot be entertained
by a civil court but by a tribunal under the ID Act.
Panyam Cements Employees Union v
Commissioner Of Labour And Ors. (2004)
ILLJ 915 AP

 Any dispute between the badli workers and the management

is also a trade dispute. It is for this reason that when there
was a settlement between the Mazdoor Union and Panyam
Cements in June, 2000, both the parties agreed on certain
terms regarding assured employment to badli workers.

 In that view of the matter, learned Counsel for the Mazdoor

Union is right that badli workers cannot be excluded from
participating in the election to recognize the majority
trade union, whereas employers were wishing to exclude
the badli workers.