| Introduction | Jurisprudence |
| Provisions | Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act |
| case laws | Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353 : 1958 SCR 1156 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) AIR 2000 SC 1274 J.H. Jadhav v. Forbes Gokak Ltd (2005) 3 SCC 202 |
| conclusion | Present Problem |
What is Industrial Dispute?
An industrial dispute, also known as a labor dispute or trade dispute, is a disagreement or conflict between employers and employees (or between employees themselves) concerning the terms of employment, non-employment, conditions of labor, or the rights and obligations of workers and employers.
In accordance with Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an “industrial dispute” arises when there is a disagreement or discord between employers and employers, between employers and workers or between workmen and workmen, which pertains to an individual’s employment status, the absence of employment, terms of employment or the conditions under which the employee works.
In simpler terms, an industrial dispute arises when there’s a conflict of interest or opinion between the management and the workers (or among workers themselves) on matters related to their work, pay, or working conditions.
Parties in Industrial Dispute:
- a. Employers and employees.
- b. Employers and other employers.
- c. Workers and other workers.
Essentials of Industrial Dispute
- Collective Nature: While an individual grievance might exist, an industrial dispute typically involves a group of employees or a trade union acting collectively. However, in some cases, disputes concerning dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, or termination of an individual workman can be considered industrial disputes.
- Employer-Employee Relationship: The dispute usually arises within the context of an employer-employee relationship. It can also occur between different groups of employers or different groups of workmen.
- Connected to Employment: The subject matter of the dispute must be related to employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labor. This covers a wide range of issues.
Causes of Industrial Dispute
- Economic Issues:
– Wages, salaries, and allowances
– Bonus and profit sharing
– Fringe benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement plans)
– Working hours and overtime pay - Working Conditions:
– Safety and health standards
– Work environment and facilities
– Leave policies and holidays
– Workload and work organization - Job Security:
– Layoffs, retrenchment, and closures
– Termination of service
– Reinstatement of dismissed employees - Management Policies and Practices:
– Disciplinary actions
– Promotions and transfers
– Recognition of trade unions
– Unfair labor practices - Trade Union Issues:
– Recognition of unions
– Collective bargaining rights
– Inter-union rivalry
What is Individual Dispute?
An individual dispute is a disagreement or difference between an employer and a single workman (employee) concerning their employment. Unlike an industrial dispute, which involves a collective of workmen or a trade union, an individual dispute centers on the specific grievances of one employee.
Section 2A inserted later to define Individual Dispute as, if an employer terminates the services of an employee due to a dispute or differences between the worker and their employer, even if no other worker or union of workers is involved, the resulting dispute is classified as an industrial dispute.
This allows the individual workman to directly access the dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, such as conciliation and potentially adjudication by a Labour Court or Tribunal, without needing the support of a union or other workmen.
Prior to the insertion of Section 2A, an individual workman’s dismissal, etc., would generally need to be espoused by a union or a substantial number of workmen to be classified as an “industrial dispute” under Section 2(k) of the Act and thus be eligible for resolution under its provisions. Section 2A provides a direct remedy for individual workmen in cases of termination.
How can Individual worker file Industrial Dispute:
- Through Trade Unions: section 15-28 provides the rights and duties to the trade union and it can file dispute on behalf of the worker to represent him. It can file before the Labour courts, industrial court, consolation officer.
- Through Labour Courts: labour courts are made to resolve disputes of workers and according to section 10, one can file dispute after seeking the government’s permission to refer to the labour court.
- Through Grievance Settlement Bodies: As per section 9(c), group of workers of 20 or more can make a grievance settlement body to resolve disputes from individual’s side. The grievance redress committee may conclude its proceedings within 45 days after receiving written request from the aggrieved party. The employee who is dissatisfied with the decision, may file an appeal before the employer and then he will conclude within one month.
Difference between INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE and INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
| INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE | INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE |
| It arises from grievances between a workman and employer related to employment or related. | Involves conflicts affecting groups of workers and employers, typically in an industry or establishment. |
| It involves only individual worker and employer | It involves multiple parties including trade unions. |
| The involvement of a registered trade union is not required for an individual dispute. | Registration of trade union is not mandatory for a dispute to be classified as an industrial dispute. |
| Limited in scope, with consequences primarily for the individual worker involved. | Wider scope as it affects a broader group of workers and often has implications for industry-wide or establishment-wide practices. |
| Resolved through established workplace grievance procedures, negotiation or legal avenues available to the individual worker. | It is resolved through the procedures outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act, including conciliation, arbitration and legal recourse. |
| Governed by labour laws, employment contracts and workplace policies. | Governed by the Industrial Disputes Act or relevant labour laws in the jurisdiction. |
Case Laws
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Facts: The Dimakuchi Tea Estate case involved the termination of Dr. K.P. Banerjee, an assistant medical officer who had been appointed on probation, contingent upon satisfactory medical reports and performance. After receiving a salary increment, his services were abruptly terminated with one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The reasons provided for his dismissal included medical concerns and alleged falsification of medical supply orders. Dr. Banerjee’s case was subsequently taken up by the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha.
Conciliation efforts to resolve the issue failed, leading to the matter being referred to a tripartite Appellate Board, which recommended Dr. Banerjee’s reinstatement. However, by that time, Dr. Banerjee had already accepted a settlement and departed. The government then referred the case to a tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, raising questions about whether the dismissal was justified and what relief, if any, was due to him.
The tribunal ruled that Dr. Banerjee did not qualify as a “workman” under the Act, determining that his case did not constitute an “industrial dispute” and thus fell outside its jurisdiction. The Labor Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. As a result, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Issue: Whether a dispute concerning someone who is not legally defined as a “workman” could be considered an “industrial dispute” under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Judgement:
The Court focused on interpreting “industrial dispute” under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He highlighted the definition, which includes disputes between employers and workmen concerning employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or labor conditions “of any person.”
The appellants argued that Dr. Banerjee’s termination was a dispute between the employer and its workmen, and that “any person” should be interpreted broadly.
However, the Justice countered that “any person” cannot be interpreted without limitations. He argued that the dispute must relate to employment or labor conditions, inherently limiting the term. Furthermore, he emphasized that the definition must be interpreted within the context and purpose of the Act, and that a literal, unrestricted interpretation of “any person” would contradict the Act’s overall scheme and other parts of the definition itself.
The court stated that there must be 4 conditions satisfied:
1. The dispute must be real and substantial
2. The industrial dispute if raised by workmen must relate to the particular establishment or party of establishment in which the workmen are employed.
3. The dispute must relate to the employment, non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor of any person, but such person must be an employee discharged or in service or a candidate for employment.
4. The workmen raising the dispute must have nexus with the dispute either because they are personally interested or because they have taken up the cause of another person in the general interest of labor welfare.
The Dimakuchi Tea Estate case involved the termination of Dr. K.P. Banerjee, an assistant medical officer who was appointed on probation. His employment was abruptly ended after he received a salary increase, with just one month’s salary given instead of the required notice. The reasons cited included medical issues and alleged falsification of medical supply orders. The Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha took up Dr. Banerjee’s case, but conciliation efforts failed, leading to a referral to a tripartite Appellate Board which recommended his reinstatement. However, Dr. Banerjee accepted a settlement and left the estate.
The government later referred the case to a tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, asking if his dismissal was justified and what relief might be appropriate. The tribunal determined that Dr. Banerjee was not considered a “workman” under the Act, thus his case did not constitute an “industrial dispute.” This ruling was upheld by the Labor Appellate Tribunal, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
In the majority opinion led by Justice S.K. Das, the court examined the term “any person” in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They argued that Dr. Banerjee’s termination did not represent an industrial dispute because the appellants lacked a direct interest in his case.
Justice Das emphasized that workmen must have a substantial interest in the employment situation of the individual involved.
In dissent, Justice A.K. Sarkar argued for a broader interpretation of “any person,” asserting that it should include those dismissed before a dispute arose. He maintained that disputes concerning non-workmen could still affect the conditions of workmen and suggested that the government should assess whether a dispute undermines industrial peace on a case-by-case basis.
Consequently, a dispute involving a non-workman falls outside the definition of an “industrial dispute” and is considered an “individual dispute.” Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal lacks the authority to adjudicate such matters. The appeal is dismissed.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers
Facts: Women working on the muster roll, similar to permanent staff, requested maternity leave but were denied because their employment had not been made permanent. The Delhi Municipal Workers Union supported their case, and the Secretary (Labour) of the Delhi Administration forwarded it to the Industrial Tribunal for resolution.
The Union filed a petition arguing that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi employed many individuals, including women on the muster roll, who had been working in that capacity for extended periods. These workers performed the same duties and had the same responsibilities as regular employees. Therefore, the denial of maternity benefits to these women reflected the Corporation’s discriminatory stance.
In its written response, the Corporation asserted that the Maternity Benefit Act did not cover muster roll workers, as they were employed on a daily wage basis.
On April 2, 1996, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the muster roll workers, ordering the Corporation to grant them maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act. The Corporation then appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Delhi High Court, where a single judge dismissed their appeal on January 7, 1997.
Subsequently, the Corporation filed a Letters Patent Appeal with the Supreme Court. Initially, the division bench dismissed the appeal due to its late filing, but the Corporation argued that this dismissal was unjustified. Following this, the division bench addressed the merits of the case, acknowledging the significant legal question it presented.
Issue: Whether the female workers on muster rolls are liable to claim maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961?
Judgement: The court emphasized the fundamental principle of equality established in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They asserted that all workers, regardless of their sector, are entitled to equality before the law and equal protection under the law.
The bench further highlighted Article 39 of the Constitution, which mandates that the state formulate policies ensuring equal rights to livelihood for both men and women, as well as equal pay for equal work.
In the context of maternity benefits, the bench referred to Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution. Article 42 addresses just and humane working conditions and maternity relief, providing a constitutional framework to evaluate the validity of executive actions that deny such relief. Article 43 emphasizes securing a living wage and a decent standard of living for workers, reinforcing the state’s obligation to ensure their well-being.
The judges also highlighted the importance of the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, which aims to provide working women with facilities and benefits that allow them to navigate motherhood with dignity and peace of mind.
Additionally, they drew attention to Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which requires states to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the workplace.
It ruled that these workers are entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, as supported by Articles 39 and 42 of the Constitution. Consequently, all female workers, including muster roll employees, are entitled to six weeks of maternity leave before and after delivery.
The Supreme Court’s division bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the lower court’s decision. The court stated that Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women should be considered alongside the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s contractual obligations to its female muster roll workers.
J.H. Jadhav v. Forbes Gokak Ltd
Facts: The respondent initially promised the appellant a promotion to the position of clerk but later retracted this promise. As a result, the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, challenging the denial of his promotion, especially since his juniors were promoted.
In their written statement, the respondent contested the appellant’s claim, arguing that the individual dispute did not qualify as an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it lacked support from the majority union or a significant number of workers.
The appellant, Mr. Jadhav, responded by asserting that the Gokak Staff Union backed his case. He cited testimony from the union secretary and submitted documents, including letters to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and complaints to the Conciliation Officer.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that while the appellant had support from a minority union, the respondent failed to provide evidence showing that the appellant’s performance or efficiency had been taken into account when denying the promotion.
The Tribunal upheld the appellant’s claim of unfair treatment, directing the respondent to promote him retroactively to the same date as his juniors’ promotions, along with associated benefits. The respondent then filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s decision, which was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court. Subsequently, the respondent appealed to the appellate court.
The appellate court interpreted Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and found insufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s membership in a minority union or the union’s formal support through a resolution.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order and upheld the Tribunal’s original judgment, effectively granting the appellant the promotion he had requested.
Issue: Whether the dispute will be considered an industrial dispute or not under sec 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
What are the essential conditions for the dispute to be considered an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Judgement: The court clarified the interpretation of ‘the union’ as outlined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They referenced the precedent set in M/s Workmen of Dharampal Prem Chand vs. M/s Dharampal Prem Chand (Saughandhi) 1965 (3) SCR 394, establishing that ‘the union’ can include both minority unions of the affected workers and unions that are not directly affiliated with the specific establishment. As a result, the court emphasized that support from a majority union is not a necessary condition for a dispute to be classified as an industrial dispute.
Additionally, the justices stated that there is no specific format required to demonstrate union support. While a formal resolution must be provided if its existence is contested in the case, the court will review any evidence of union support presented and evaluate its significance based on the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court determined that if the appellant’s services were terminated due to a separate industrial dispute, he would be entitled to the promotion benefits up to his dismissal. If not terminated, he would receive the promotion as originally ordered by the Tribunal.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision illogical and rejected the respondent’s request to remand the case. It upheld the appeal, overturning the High Court’s order and reinstating the Tribunal’s award with modifications.
PRESENT PROBLEM
2. (b)(i) It is unlikely to be an industrial dispute due to the lack of a direct nexus to the workmen’s own employment conditions.
(ii) It has the potential to become an industrial dispute if the individual grievance is taken up collectively by the workmen or their union.
3. The industrial dispute raised by the Union on behalf of the Assistant Medical Officer is likely maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided that his primary duties were of a skilled technical nature and he does not fall within the excluded categories of “workman.” ‘X’ would then have recourse to the dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Act, such as conciliation and adjudication, through the Union’s representation.
