- (1.) one of the questions raised in this group of cases was that Section 2-A of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. was constitutionally ultra vires. Considering the importance of this question, a learned Single Judge referred these cases to a larger Bench for deciding this question. Learned counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments to the validity of Section 2-A. We shall hence deal with only that question.
(2.) Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. defined an industrial dispute. In C. P. Transport Service v. Raghunath, 1957 AIR(SC) 104it was observed that decided cases in India disclosed 3 different views as to the meaning of 'industrial dispute': (1) a dispute between an employer and a single workman is not an industrial dispute; (2) it can be an industrial dispute; and (3) it cannot per se be an industrial dispute, but may become one if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. The Supreme Court observed that the preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of the three views. Notwithstanding that the language of Section 2 (k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided herein should be set in motion to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subiect of adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. This view was reaffirmed bv the Supreme Court in the case of Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, 1957 AIR(SC) 532The Court observed that this view is in consonance with the basic idea underlying modern industrial legislation. The interpretation given to the corresponding phrase "trade dispute" in English law and "Industrial dispute" in Australian law also accords with this view and in the absence of an express provision to the contrary or necessary intendment there is no reason to give a different interpretation to the expression in the Indian Statute. (Contd. on Col. 2) GOVT. OF INDIA ACT List III Entry 29 List III Entry 26 List III Entry 27 6. Entry 29 and Entry 22 both were "trade unions: industrial and labour disputes". Entry 26 was "Factories". Entry 27 was "welfare of labour; conditions of labour: provident funds, employer's liability and workmen's compently
(3.) In view of this state of iudicial opinion. Parliament by the Amending Act No. 35 of 1965 added Section 2-A to the Industrial Disputes Act. It provides: "2-A. 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 anv union of workmen is a party to the dispute.";