- (1.) This special appeal has been referred to a Full Bench because it involved the decision of an important point which was whether or not the definition of 'industrial dispute' as contained in clause (1) of Section 2 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter referred as the U. P. Act) stands modified by Section 2-A inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act. 1965 (Act 35 of 1965) which came in force with effect from 1-12-1965. It appears that the two Division Benches of this Court expressed divergent views of this matter. In C. S. W. Ltd. V/s. Dr. B. P. Mohindra,1971 AllLJ 715 a Bench consisting of Oak, C. J. and R. B. Misra, J. held that Section 2-A inserted in the Central Act must be confined to matters governed by that Act and it does not modify the definition of 'Industrial Dispute' contained in Section 2 (1). Another Division Bench, consisting of Satish Chandra and K. N. Seth, JJ. in Har Narain V/s. State of U. P., 1974 LabIC 318 took the view that Section 2-A of the Central Act would operate in the U. P. Act also.
(2.) The definition of 'industrial dispute' as contained in Section 2 (k) of the Central Act is as follows: '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." The same expression has been defined in the U. P. Act in clause (1) of Section 2 in these words: "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; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company, or (ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by Central Government, or (iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or (iv) a mine or an oil field."
(3.) It was authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that a dispute between an employer and individual workman did not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' as contained in the Central Act or the U. P. Act unless that dispute was also sponsored by a trade union of workmen of that establishment, and if the workmen of that establishment, had no union of their own, by a union of another establishment belonging to the same industry which had been joined by some or all of the establishments in which the dispute arose. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions which have been cited by the learned single Judge in his judgment, Reference may be made only to Workmen of Indian Express V/s. Management, 1969 1 SCC 228.;