The Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.
Syllabus - unit -3
Resolution of Industrial Dispute

a) Industrial Dispute and Individual Dispute

b) Arena of Interaction and Participants: Industry, Workman and Employer
c) Settlement of Industrial Dispute

i) Works Committee
ii) Conciliation Machinery
iii) Court of Enquiry
iv) Voluntary Arbitration
v) Adjudication: Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal

Powers of the Appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Unfair Labour Practice
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.
SECTION 2(K)

- OBJECT OF THE ACT

- I. D Means dispute between.
- Dispute should be connected with.
- Dispute should be in relation with.
-
FIVE SCHEDULES ATTACHED TO THE ACT.

HISTORY;-

Defence of India Rules 1942.

- Central emergency measures
- Prohibition on strikes and lockouts.( 14 days notice mandatory)
- Reference for adjudication and conciliation mandatory.
- Required employer to observe terms of employment/ breach was criminal offence.
TRADE DISPUTES ACT,1929
- IMPOSED RESTRAINT ON RIGHT OF STRIKE IN PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICES.
- NO PROVISION WAS THERE TO MAKE THE PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED FOR SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
- DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES LAPSED ON 1ST OCT. 1946. BUT KEPT IN
FORCE FOR NEXT 6 MONTHS.
- SO AS A PERMANENT SOLUTION , PERMANENT LEGISLATION WAS
NEEDED.
On 1st April 1947 .The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
BASIC FEATURES.

- COMPULSORY CONCILIATION AND ADJUDICATION IN INDUSTRIAL

MATTERS.
- FEW INSTITUTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WERE
CREATED.
- PROVISION FOR STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS WERE MADE .
- PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS
- PROVISION FOR LAYOFF AND RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION
WERE MADE.
- PROVISION OF PENALTY FOR VIOLATION WERE MADE.
- DIFFERENT TERMS WERE DEFINED.
INDUSTRY.
2(J) “INDUSTRY” MEANS ANY BUSINESS, TRADE,
UNDERTAKING, MANUFACTURE OR CALLING OF
EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ANY CALLING, SERVICE,
EMPLOYMENT, HANDICRAFT, OR INDUSTRIAL
OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION OF WORKMEN.

1) D. N Banerjee v. P. R. Mukherjee.

AIR 1953 SC 58
- SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY
- SATISFACTION OF HUMAN WANTS
- EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATION.
- THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT A STATUTE FROM GIVING THE
WORDS INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE A WIDER MEANING IN
ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RAPID INDUSTRIAL
PROGRESS AND IN INTEREST OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
- Undertaking in first part and occupation and avocation in second part is
exhaustive.
- NEITHER INVESTMENT OR PROFIT MOTIVE IS ESSENTIAL TO
CONSTITUTE AN INDUSTRY.
- IT IS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO IS OWNER . PRIVATE PERSON OR GOVT.
NAGPUR CORPORATION v. EMPLOYEES NAGPUR CORPORATION.

AIR 1960 SC 675.

Important judicial decision on the expression “ Analogous to

the carrying on of a trade or business” And “whether all
the departments of municipal corporation are included
in the the term industry”.

- Emphasis was on the nature of activity :- whether

these are sovereign or regal functions of the state.
Observation of SC:-

- CORPORATION IS AN INDUSTRY BUT INDUSTRY CAN’T INCLUDE

WHAT ARE CALLED REGAL AND SOVEREIGN FUNCTION.
- IF THE SERVICE IS PERFORMED BY AN INDIVIDUAL IS INDUSTRY. IT
WILL CONTINUE TO BE SAME IF PERFORMED BY GOVT
CORPORATION.
- NEITHER THE INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL / EXISTENCE OF OF PROFIT
IS NECESSARY ELEMENT OF INDUSTRY.
- IF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY A CORPORATION IS AN INDUSTRY ,
THE EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPT CONNECTED WITH THE SERVICES IN
FINANCIAL , ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ACT.
- INDUSTRIAL AND NON INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY.
2) State of bombay v.Hospital Mazdoor Sabha .

AIR 1960 SC 610.

Que:- whether Hospitals are industry or not?

SC HELD :- YES

- WHEN ANY ACTIVITY IS SYSTEMATICALLY AND HABITUALLY

UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF
MATERIAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
- WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON FOR PROFIT OR NOT IS
IMMATERIAL.
- TRADITIONAL MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO TRADE OR BUSINESS HAD
LOST ITS VALIDITY.
MANAGEMENT OF SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL v. KULDEEP SINGH

AIR 1970 SC 1406.

SC. HELD:- NO

KURJI HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL WAS HELD NOT BE AN INDUSTRY

BECAUSE THAT WAS ENTIRELY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION CARRYING ON
THE WORK OF TRAINING , RESEARCH AND TREATMENT.

THEREFORE SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL , NEW DELHI AND TUBERCULOSIS

HOSPITAL WERE HELD NOT BE AN INDUSTRY.

Management of Hospitals, Orissa v. their workmen.AIR 1971 SC 1259 ( N0)

Hospitals run by govt. As apart of its functions is not industry.

 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
University of Delhi v. Ram Nath. AIR 1963 SC 1873.

Mr Ram Nath and Mr Aashgar Mashih appointed as driver.

SC HELD :- work of imparting education is more a mission and avocation

than trade or business .

Therefore university is not an industry.

Brahmo Samaj education society v. West Bengal College Employees.

(1960) 1 LLJ 472 (Cal) ( no)

An undertaking which depends on the intelligence and capacity of an

individual does not become an industry just because its a big establishment.
 Clubs, solicitor FIRMS ARE INDUSTRY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE HAVE TWO WINGS

DEFENCE
DEFENCE SERVICES PRODUCTION

ORDINANCE
FACTORY
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY v. A. RAJAPPA .
AIR 1978 SC 548

- TRIPLE TEST.
- INDUSTRY DOES NOT INCLUDE SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS
SERVICES.
- ABSENCE OF PROFIT MOTIVE IRRELEVENT.
- TRUE FOCUS FUNCTIONAL
- PHILANTHROPIC ANIMATION.
- DOMINANT NATURE TEST.

-
EXCEPTIONS
- NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS LESS
- HONORARY AVOCATION
- FREE SERVICES
- WORKERS ARE NOT ENGAGED FOR
REMUNERATION
- NO MASTER SERVANT RELATIONSHIP.
- SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS
STATE OF U.P v. JAI BIR SINGH.(2005)5 SCC1
- 5 JUDGES BENCH
- REFERENCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF
INDUSTRY.
- WORKER ORIENTED APPROACH
- OVER EXPENSIVE DEFINITION
- LARGE NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL CLAIMS RESULTING IN AWARDS
AGAINST EMPLOYERS.
- OVER EXPENSIVE DEFINITION
- CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS SHOULD BE WIDE TO INCLUDE
WELFARE ACTIVITIES OF STATE.
- SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL CASE IS RIGHTLY DECIDED .
- UNAMENDED DEFINITION OF INDUSTRY., ( 1982 PROPOSED DEF)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE AND INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE.
SECTION 2(K):- (k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between
employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with employment or non-employment or
the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person

2A. Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial

dispute.- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise
terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between
that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute.
“industrial dispute”
(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and
employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.

Dispute may be in relation with :-

- Any workman or workmen

- Or any other person in whom they are interested in as a body.
- Dispute or difference
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
V.
Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate .
AIR 1958 SC 353
- THERE SHOULD BE POSSIBLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
- EMPLOYER MUST BE IN A POSITION TO GIVE RELIEF
- DISPUTE MUST BE RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT IN WHICH THE
WORKMEN ARE EMPLOYED.
- ANY PERSON COULD BE THE ONE EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISCHARGED,
OR IN SERVICE, BUT A CANDIDATE FOR EMPLOYMENT COULD NOT
BE A WORKMEN.
- THE WORKMENS NEXUS WITH THE DISPUTE MUST BE DIRECT.
- THEREFORE A INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NOT ESPOUSED BY THE
OTHERS OF SAME CLASS IS NOT INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.
SECTION 18 Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.-
(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman
otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the
parties to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has
become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who
referred the dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act
or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under
sub-section (3A) of Section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal which has become enforceable] shall be binding on- (a) all
parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in
the proceedings
as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator,Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so
summoned without proper cause;

(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs,
successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute
relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed
of workmen, all
persons who were employed in the
establishment or part of the establishment, as the case
may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the
dispute and all persons who subsequently become
employed in that establishment or part.
CASES
- PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. v. KAMLAKAR WADKE 1974) II LLJ 66
Bom
- RSRTC v. KHADARMAL 2006 I LLJ 1002 SC
- SHAMBHU NATH GOYAL v. BANK OF BARODA. AIR 1978 SC 1088
- WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED v. HINDUSTAN LEVER
LIMITED. AIR 1974 SC 17
- STANDARD VACUUM REFINERY CO. v. WORKMEN(1960) II LLJ 233
- BONGAIGAON REFINING CO. v. SAMIUDDIN AHMED.AIR 2001 SC 3577
- SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH v. INDIAN HUME PIPE Co. LTD
1993 SCC (2) 386
- WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD. v. Management of
INDIAN EXPRESS.AIR 1970 SC 737
- JADHAV J. H v. FORBES GOBAK LTD. (2005) 1 LLJ 1089 SC
-
Individual dispute
1[2A. Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial
dispute.- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or
otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or
difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out
of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be
an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of
workmen is a party to the dispute.]
- SECTION 2A HAD LIMITED APPLICATION.
- ONLY A COLLECTIVE DISPUTE.
- THOSE TAKING UP THE CAUSE OF THE AGGRIEVED WORKMEN
SHOULD BE IN SAME EMPLOYMENT.
- THERE MUST BE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WHEN CAUSE AROSE.
- COLLECTIVE WILL OF APPRECIABLE NUMBER OF WORKMEN.
- WORKMEN MUST BE AMEMBER OF SUPPORTING UNION.
cases
1) JADHAV. J. H. v. FORBES GOBAK LTD (2005) 1 LLJ 1089 (SC)
2) CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT SERVICE v. RAGHU NATH GOPAL
PATWARDHAN (1957) 1LLJ 27 SC .
3) NEWSPAPERERS LTD. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AIR 1957 SC
532.
4) WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS v. MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN
EXPRESS AIR 1970 SC 737.
5) WORKMEN v. M/s DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND AIR 1965 SCR (3) 394.
6) JAGDISH NARAIN SHARMA v. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LTD. (1994) II LLJ
600

7) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v.

FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL)AIR 2000 SC 1274.