- (1.) The dispute relating to the termination of service of Sri R. C. Jauhari was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court I, Kanpur, by a notification dated 24th November, 1969. While the dispute was still pending before the Labour Court, Sri R. C. Jauhari died on 7th November, 1971. The petitioner company raised an issue before the Labour Court that in view of the death of the workman the industrial dispute referred to it ceased to exist and no award could be made in favour of dead person and that the reference had become infructuous. The order of the Labour Court rejecting the stand taken by the petitioner Company, has been impugned in this writ petition.
(2.) It was contended that on the death of the workman whose cause was espoused by the Union of the workmen, the dispute which centred round him ceased to be an industrial dispute. The authority of the Union to represent a workman could not continue beyond the latter's lifetime as the principle of representation is based upon the relationship of principal and agent. Where the principal is dead, the authority of the agent to act for him automatically ceases. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Management of Tocklai Experimental Station Cinnamara v. State of Assamm, 1960 AIR(Gau) 132 and Bihar Working Journalists Union v. H. K. Chaudhari, 1968 AIR(Pat) 135 . In the Assam case, the cause of the workman dismissed from service was taken up by the Union of the workman but before the dispute could be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal for adjudication the workman died. The competence and continuance of the reference was challenged on the ground that as the workman whose dismissal and reinstatement were the subject-matters of the dispute had already died, the reference had become infructuous. Deka, J. on a difference of opinion between Sarjoo Prasad, C. J. and Mehrotra, J. held that the dispute should be one capable of settlement or adjudication by one party giving necessary relief to the other. There is no scope of giving relief to the workman who is dead and therefore any settlement on that basis is out of the question since the nexus between the dispute and the parties to the dispute ceases to exist and that takes the dispute out of the category of the industrial dispute. The Patna High Court in the case of B. W. Journalists Union came to the same conclusion on the reasoning that the authority of a person or a body of persons to represent another person cannot continue beyond the latter's lifetime as the principle of representation is based upon the relationship of principal and agent and where the principal is dead, the authority of the agent for him automatically ceases.
(3.) With respect we are unable to subscribe to the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases. The whole underlying object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to bring about harmony between the employer and the employees so as to lead to industrial peace. Once a dispute, though relating to the discharge of an individual workman, has been taken up by the Union the entire community of workmen acquires an interest in the dispute; it ceases to be an individual dispute and is transformed into an industrial dispute affecting the interest of the entire body of workmen. The validity of the discharge of a single workman or the question of his re-instatement no doubt is a question which relates to his non-employment but it assumes the character of an industrial dispute when it is taken up by the workmen as a class. There is nothing in the definition of the words "industrial dispute" to suggest that once a dispute has been taken up by the workmen and is transformed from an individual dispute into an industrial dispute, it would cease to be so if the person whose non-employment was taken up by the workmen dies. It was contended that the existence of an industrial dispute pre-supposes the existence of a dispute. The existence of a dispute pre-supposes the existence of two contesting parties to the dispute. If the person whose non-employment was the subject-matter of the dispute dies, one of the parties to dispute is no longer in existence and thus there ceases to be any dispute. The fallacy in this contention lies in the assumption that the party to the dispute is the workman whose non-employment was the subject- matter of dispute. Once his cause is taken up by the organised body of workmen the entire body of workmen become party to the dispute. Before the Industrial Court the parties are the employer and the Union of workmen and not the individual workman whose cause initially led to the dispute. The Union of workmen is not there as an agent of the individual workman but as the principal party itself which is interested in the adjudication of the dispute in the interest of industrial peace and harmony and in safeguarding the interest of the workmen as a class. It may be that a certain relief may not be available after the death of the concerned workman, for example where the relief sought is for his re-instatement, but if the dispute relates to the benefit to which he was entitled while he was still alive, the reference would not be infructuous merely on the death of the concerned workman. In the present case when the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court, the workman was very much alive and once his case was taken up by the Union the dispute transferred itself into an industrial dispute and the reference to the Industrial Court was validly made. The death of the workman during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings could not render the reference invalid or deprive the Industrial Court of the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. The nexus between the dispute and the parties to the dispute continues to exist. We may note here that even the Patna High Court in the case referred to earlier took the precaution of observing that it cannot be laid down as a universal proposition that a dispute ceases to be an industrial dispute upon the death of the workman concerned.;