You can grab notes for other topics from here.
- Among other things, the IDA aims at the settlement of all industrial disputes arising between the employer and labour by peaceful means and through the machinery of conciliation, arbitration and if necessary, through the adjudication under the Act.
- The term “industrial dispute” connotes a real and substantial difference having some element of persistency, and likely to endanger the industrial peace of the community, if not adjusted
- Definition of ‘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 persons.
- As per the definition of ‘industrial dispute’, three things are required –
- There should be a dispute or difference.
- The dispute / difference should be between employers and / or workmen.
- The dispute / difference must be connected with
- the employment or non-employment i.e.. retrenchment
- terms of employment; or
- the conditions of labour
- Note that the definition makes a reference to any person – needless to say, this significantly broadens the scope of what kinds of disputes will fall within the purview of ‘industrial dispute’.
- Who can raise the dispute?
- The term “industrial dispute” conveys the meaning that the dispute must be such that would affect large groups of workmen and employers.
- The disputes can be raised by workmen themselves or their union or federation on their behalf.
- This is based on the fact that workmen have right of collective bargaining. Thus, there should be community of interest in the dispute.
- A dispute in relation to an individual can also develop into an industrial dispute if it is taken up by the union or substantial number of workmen
- Section 36
- The Supreme Court has interpreted the expression any person in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (AIR 1958 SC 353).
- The facts of the case are that one Dr. K. P. Banerjee, Assistant Medical Officer, had been dismissed unheard, with a month’s salary in lieu of notice and was not given any reasons for his dismissal. He had accepted such payment and left the estate. This person was not a workman, however, the workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, espoused the cause and a dispute was raised and referred by the Government for adjudication under s. 10 of the Act.
- The question came before the court whether a dispute raised by the workmen’ relating to a person who was not a workman could be an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined by S. 2(k) of the IDA.
- Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Industrial Tribunal took the view that as Dr. Banerjee was not an workman within the meaning of the Act, and the dispute was not an industrial dispute as defined by S. 2(k).
- Can there be an ‘industrial dispute’ between the employer and an employee who is nor a workman?
- The court held that having regard to the scheme and objects of the Act and its other provisions, the expression any person must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context. The two crucial limitations are –
(a) the dispute must be a real dispute between capable of settlement;
(b) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised, must be one in whose employment etc., the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest.
- In the absence of such interest, the dispute cannot be said to be a real dispute between the parties.
- The conditions referred to in the first and second parts of the definition clause are clearly fulfilled in the present case, because
(a) there is a dispute or difference over the termination of service of Dr. K. P. Banerjee; and
(b) the dispute or difference is between the employer, namely, the management of the Dimakuchi tea estate on one side, and its workmen on the other
The real difficulty arises when we come to the third part of the definition clause. The expression ” of any person ” occurring in the third part of the definition clause is an expression of very wide import and therefore with include a dispute that relates to Dr. Banerjee even though he is not a workman. The definition of “industrial dispute” does not require that the person be a workman.
- Where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person regarding whose employment etc. the dispute is raised, need not be strictly speaking a “workman” within the meaning of IDA – BUT must be one in whose employment etc. the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest.
- In the present case, the person was not a workman as he belonged to the medical / technical staff, which was altogether a different category from that of the workmen. The workmen of the establishment had neither a direct or substantial interest in his employment / non-employment. Even if he is the member of the same trade union, this dispute does not amount to an industrial dispute under the IDA because of absence of direct / substantial interest.
You can grab notes for other topics from here.
