K.B.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the prayer is for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Lucknow, Opposite Party No. 2, from proceeding into the matter of adjudication on the basis of Annexures 1 and 3 and for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure 3.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition, may now be stated. The petitioner Vishin Das is the proprietor of two tailoring concerns, M/s. Karachi Tailors, Nazirabad and M/s. Reliable Tailors, Nazirabad, in the City of Lucknow. He alleges that the concern in the name and style of Reliable Tailors is now defunct and no longer in existence. He further alleges that Mohammad Mushoorur Rahman alias Chunny, Opposite Party No. 4, was not a workman in either of these two concerns but used to work as a casual tailor on piece rate basis. He terminated his job as a tailor with effect from November 15, 1966. His cause was espoused by the Bazar Karmachari Sangh, Opposite Party No. 3, and on the basis, that State of U.P., Opposite Party No. 1, referred the dispute of termination of the job as an Industrial Dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, Opposite Party No. 2, under Section 4-K, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner filed a written statement in the Labour Court and, inter alia, took the pleas that (1) there was no Industrial Dispute and the reference (Annexure 1) was consequently without jurisdiction and for that reason did not confer any jurisdiction upon the Labour Court to adjudicate into the matter, and (2) assuming that it was an Industrial dispute, it was not espoused by any Union registered for one trade only and as such the Bazar Karmachari Sangh was not entitled to represent Mohammad Mashoorur Rahman before the Labour Court. The petition has been traversed in the counter-affidavit. The Labour Court treated additional issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as preliminary issues and found on Issue No. 1 that Bazar Karmachari Sangh was competent to represent Mohammad Mashoorur Rahman under Section 6-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the State Act), read with Rule 40, U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947; on Issue No. 2, that the individual dispute had been properly espoused by the Bazar Karmachari Sangh and it had thus become an Industrial Dispute; and in any case, an individual dispute shall be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act); on Issue No. 3, that Mashoorur Rahman was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (Z) of the State Act; on Issue No. 4, that the reference was not bad, irrespective of the fact whether Mashoorur Rahman was a tailor in the one or the other establishment. In view of these findings, the Labour Court decided to fix a date to go into the merits of the case and hence this writ.
(3.) It was held in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee, A.I.R. 1953 SC 58 , as follows:- "The words "industrial dispute" convey the meaning to the ordinary mind that the dispute must be such as would affect large groups of workmen and employers ranged on opposite sides on some general questions on which each group is bound together by a community of interests - such as wages, bonuses, allowances, pensions, provident fund, number of working hours per week, holidays and so on. Even with reference to a business that is carried on, we would hardly think of saying that there is an industrial dispute where the employee is dismissed by his employer and the dismissal is questioned as wrongful. But at the same time, having regard to the modern conditions of society where capital and labour have organised themselves into groups for the purpose of fighting their disputes and settling them on the basis of the theory that in union is strength, and collective bargaining has come to stay, a single employee's case might develop into an industrial dispute, when as often happens, it is taken up y the trade union of which he is a member, and there is a concerted demand by the employees for redress." In C.P.T. Service Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, A.I.R. 1957 SC 104 Venkatarama Ayyar, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, observed that the question whether a dispute by an individual workman would be an Industrial dispute has evoked considerable conflict of opinion both in the High Courts and in Industrial tribunals, and three different views have been expressed thereon, namely, (1) a dispute which concerns only the rights of the individual workers cannot be held to be an Industrial dispute, (2) a dispute between an employer and a single employee can be an Industrial Dispute, and (3) a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot per se be an Industrial Dispute, but it may become one if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. After enumerating the three different views, the correct position was laid down thus:- "The preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of the three views stated above, and there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the language of Section 2 (k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between the employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that dispute touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. If that were the correct position, the respondent was not entitled to apply under Section 16 (2) of the Act as the workmen in the industry had not adopted his dispute as their own and chosen to treat it as their casus belli with the company." However, the Supreme Court did not express any final opinion on the question whether a dispute simpliciter between an employer and a workman would be an Industrial dispute. In Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 532 , adverting to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, their Lordships delivered themselves thus:- "Thus viewed the provisions of the Act lead to the conclusion that its applicability to an individual dispute as opposed to dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded unless it acquires the general characteristics of an industrial dispute, viz., the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with the individual workman and thus create conditions contemplated by Section 3 of the U.P. Act which is the foundation of State Governmental action under that Act." Indeed, their Lordships went on further to hold that the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, that is to say, an individual dispute is comprised in an Industrial Dispute must, unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided. See also Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, A.I.R. 1963 SC 318 ; Workmen of M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand v, M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand, A.I.R. 1966 SC 182 .;