Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) The question that arises in these appeals is the implication of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 14th August, 1972 the Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the dismissal by the appellant of one of its employees M. S. Bobhate. On 25th August 1972 the appellant dismissed three other workers, Dastoor, Shame and Soman after an enquiry and this led to a strike in the appellant's factory. Towards the end of October 1972 the Company discharged about 312 of its employees and filed 12 applications before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of such discharge on the ground that a reference was pending before it. The appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that the strike was illegal as a reference was pending in respect of Bobhate and therefore the discharge of its workers by the appellant was in order and approval should be granted. On August 30, 1973 the Tribunal rejected all the applications for approval and these appeals have been filed in pursuance of a Special Leave granted by this Court.
(2.) Though reference was made to the' repeated calls on behalf of the employer to the strikers to return to work and the refusal of the workmen to return to work the sole point for determination is whether when a reference is pending before the Labour Court in respect of a matter falling under Section 2A any strike by the other workers would be illegal. That is the only ground on which Special Leave has been granted. Under Section24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23. We are not concerned with Section 22 in this case though at one stage that seems to have been one of the grounds for contending that the strike was illegal. Section 23, insofar as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads as follows: "23. No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out (a)..................................... (b) during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings: (bb) ...............: (c) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award." The important words are "during the pendency of proceedings". Undoubtedly a proceeding was pending before the Labour Court and that was in respect of the dismissal of Bobhate. Did this make the strike by the workmen of the appellant illegal though at least in its origin the strike had nothing to do with Bobhate's case (supra) It was common ground that even though the dispute between the employer and the employees might relate to a case of a single workman the provisions of Section 23 (b) would apply if the single workman's cause has been espoused by a labour union which need not necessarily comprise of all the employees of the concerned employer. The decisions of some High Courts establish that even though the proceedings pending before the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal might relate to certain matters only, there cannot be a strike or lock-out even in relation to matters other than those which are pending before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal (see Provat Kumar v. W. T. C. Parkar, AIR 1950 Cal 116, and State of Bihar v. Deodar Jha, AIR 1958 Pat 51). We express our agreement with this view. But the question is:does the fact that a proceeding is pending before a Labour Court in respect of an individual workman bar the other workers from resorting to a strike Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which came into effect on 1-12-1965 reads as follows: "2A. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services at 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." An industrial dispute is defined in Section 2 (k) as follows: "(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." It is in interpreting this clause that it has been held that even where the dispute relates to a single workman it is an industrial dispute if that dispute is espoused by the general body of the employees. Before the introduction of Section 2A an individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose services were otherwise terminated and whose case was not espoused by any labour union or by a substantial number of workmen had no remedy. It was to deal with that contingence that Section 2A was enacted. We would therefore be justified in concluding that in enacting Section 2A the intention of the legislature was that a individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose services were otherwise terminated should be given relief without its being necessary for the relationship between the employer and the whole body of employees and attracted to that dispute and the dispute becoming a generalised one between labour on the one hand and the employer on the other. If this point of view is kept clear in mind, the solution of the problem before us becomes simple.
(3.) In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which resulted in the enactment of Section 2A it is stated: "In construing the scope of industrial dispute, Courts have taken the view that a dispute between an employer and an individual workman cannot per se be an industrial dispute, but it may become one if it is taken up by a union or a number of workmen making a common cause with the aggrieved individual workman. In view of this, cases of individual dismissals and discharges cannot be taken up for conciliation or arbitration or referred to adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, unless they are sponsored by a union or a number of workmen. It is now proposed to make the machinery under the Act available in such cases." This is relied upon by the employer to contend that the whole of the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act is available even in the case of a reference relating to an individual workman. On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the workmen that if the intention was to make the whole of the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act available even in the case of pendency of the case of an individual workman before a Labour Court or a Tribunal what would have been done is to add the words "and includes any dispute or difference between a workman and his employer connected with or arising out of the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the services of that workman notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute" to clause (k) of Section 2. It is further contended that the dispute or difference between the individual workman and his employer is only deemed to be an industrial dispute and that it is not in fact an industrial dispute. It is contended on behalf of the employer that once something which is not an industrial dispute is deemed to be an industrial dispute all the necessary implications of such a deeming provision should be given effect to and the mind should not be allowed to boggle in working out such implications (see East End Dwellings Co. Ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109 at page No. 132 and Commr. of Income-tax v. Teja Singh, (1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 394 .) On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the workmen that in the case of a deeming provision no greater effect should be given to it than is necessary for the purpose for which it is enacted. Both these contentions are amply supported by authority and the duty of this Court is to see what exactly are the necessary implications of the deeming provision. We should say, however, that it does not make any difference to the decision of this question whether the deeming provision is in the form of a separate section like Section 2A as in the present case or is part of the definition of the industrial dispute itself as is suggested it should be on behalf of the workmen.;