BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS is a Writ petition on behalf of the Management of the Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Society (Jodhpur Dn.) Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Society) praying that by a Writ of Prohibition the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Respondent No. 1) be prohibited from taking any proceeding in Case No. I. T. 2/1959 - Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union Vs. Northern Railway Co-operative Society, Jodhpur.
(2.) THE facts set out by the petitioner are that the Society was established by the railway employees of the Jodhpur Railway in the year 1920, and after the integration of the Jodhpur Railway with the Northern Railway, the Society was constituted as Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. , Jodhpur Dn. , Jodhpur. This Society was duly registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. In that Society Shri Kan Raj Mehta (Respondent No. 2) was working as Head Clerk in the year 1956, while the three Respondents No. 2 to 5 were working as clerks. According to the Society, the activities of these persons were prejudicial and subversive to the efficient working of the Society on account of their: - (a) collectively remaining absent from work from 8. 4. 56 to some days after 28th of April, 1956 i. e. just on the eve of the general meeting when the Balance-Sheet and report were to be submitted before the General Body. (b) instigating and conspiring to paralyse the working of the Society on the eve of the annual General Meeting held on 28. 4. 56. (c) taking active part in distribution of certain leaflets to vilify the management. (d) instigating the depositors to withdraw their deposits from the Society and thus undermining the very existence of the Society. The Society, therefore, took action against them and after having charge sheeted them and giving them full opportunity for hearing the Society ordered the removal of Respondent No. 2 on the 17th September, 1956 and stopped the increments of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Respondent No. 2 made a representation to the Rajasthan Government for referring his case to the Industrial Tribunal under sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Government referred the matter to that body. However, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan declined to decide the complaint of Kan Raj on the ground that it was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute. Thereafter the Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') which according to the petitioner was the Union of the employees of the Northern Railway took up the case of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 through its Divisional Secretary and made a representation to the Rajasthan Government to refer the dispute which according to the Union had arisen between the management of the Society and their workmen - Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to the Tribunal. By Notification No. D. 17506/f. 5 (10)Lab. /59 of the 10th of February, 1959. the Rajasthan Government referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal: - (a) Whether the removal of Shri Kan Raj by the management of the Co-operative Society, Jodhpur on 17. 9. 1956 and stopping of grade increments of Sarva Shri Achaleshwar Sharma, Shri V. D. Sharma and Shri G. S. Saxena was illegal or unjustified. (b) What relief these workers are entitled to? The petitioner filed the written statement before the Industrial Tribunal taking up as one of the points that no reference could be made by the Rajasthan Government on the representation of the Union and so the reference was invalid and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go in to that dispute. The Tribunal framed several issues, the first of which related to the question whether there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec, 2 (k) of the Act. The Tribunal decided this against the petitioner holding that the dispute before it was an industrial dispute. The Tribunal, however, did not give reasons for its decision. The petitioner moved this Court on the 29th of August 1960 praying for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition forbearing the opposite parties from taking any proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeding further in the matter. This Court by its order dated the 22nd January 1962 directed the Tribunal to give its reasons for the findings arrived at by it so that this Court could examine the reasons for the Tribunal holding that it had jurisdiction to go into dispute. The Tribunal has given its reasons for its findings and the same have been placed before us. Before we take up the main question whether the dispute which has been referred by the Rajasthan Government to the Tribunal is an industrial dispute we may mention that under clause 8 (a) of the Constitution and the rules of the Union all the employees of the Northern Railway are eligible to become members of the Union by their signing a pledge in the prescribed form. The bulk of the members of the Society are permanent or temporary employees of the Northen Railway. Some of the employees of the Society are also the members of the Union. Of the employees of the Society Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are members of the Union. According to the Union, one another employee of the society is also its member but there is no finding of the Industrial Tribunal to that effect and for the purposes of this case we ignore this and take it that only Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 of the Society are the members of the Union. It may also be mentioned that according to the Society there are only 11 employees in all of the Society while the contention of the Union is that there were only nine employees. We may proceed in this case on the basis that there are 11 employees of the Society. The Industrial Tribunal has also found that some of the privileges and amenities which are granted to the railway employees were also made available to the employees of the Society under the orders of the appropriate Railway authorities. It may also be mentioned that by a resolution passed on the 15th of July 1957 the working committee of the Union took up the case of all the four employees of the Society. It was contended before the Tribunal that the Union which was a Union of the employees of the Northern Railway could not take up the cause of these employees of the Society and even if it did take up their cause, it cannot be said that by doing so the dispute had become an industrial dispute. The Tribunal took the view that this case may be taken to be a dispute between employers and Employers as some of the members of the Society were also the members of the Union and as the matter related to employment or non-employment or terms of employment of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who were the employess of the Society the dispute was an industrial dispute. The Tribunal also held that the railway workmen as a class had a direct and substantial interest in the employment or terms of employment of the Society and they could take up their cause. It was argued before the Industrial Tribunal that under clause 8 (a) of the Union's constitution and rules only the employees of the Northern Railway could be eligible to become members of the Union. The Tribunal took the view that it was an arguable point but it gave a finding that Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were as a matter of fact members of the Union and therefore the Union had the locus standi to sponsor or espouse the cause of these employees of the society. In this writ petition the main arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be summed up as follows: - 1. That the Tribunal was wrong in taking the view that this was a dispute between employer and employer. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to that effect and the Tribunal was wrong to draw any inference to that effect from the mere circumstance that some of the members of the Union happened to be also members of the Society. 2. That the Union could not espouse the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who were employees of the Society and thereby convert their individual disputes into industrial disputes. The members of the Union apart from the four respondents who were aggrieved parties were not the employees of the Society but were the employees of the Northern Railway and they could not be regarded to be directly interested in the dispute. In this connection, it is pointed out that from the material on record it cannot be said that any other employee of the Society, except respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had taken up the causes of these aggrieved persons. Thus, the contention is that the disputes remained individual disputes which the Rajasthan Government had no power to refer to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and resolve this dispute under the provisions of the Act. 3. That Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 could not become the members of the Union under the constitution and rules of the Union, and as such, the Tribunal should have ignored their membership of the Union. 4. That unless the cause of an aggrieved workman is supported by the other employees of the same industry who are not aggrieved, there can be no industrial dispute so as to call for a reference under Sec. 10 of the Act. Learned counsel on behalf of the Union has supported the order of the Industrial Tribunal and has further pointed out that in the particular circumstances of this case a substantial number of the employees i. e. respondents Nos. 2 to 5 of the Society, have taken up the cause of one another by acting collectively in placing their grievances before the Government through the union, that is, each of them has taken up the cause of the other and the dispute is an industrial dispute and not an individual dispute and has been properly referred by the Rajasthan Government to the Industrial Tribunal. Industrial dispute has been defined by the Act in Sec. 2 (k ). It runs, as follows: - "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employer and employer, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen & workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. " We do not agree with the Tribunal in the view that this is an industrial dispute between the employer and employers. The very reference shows that the State Government was satisfied that there was a case for reference to the Tribunal on account of the fact that industrial dispute specified in the reference had arisen between the management of the Society and their workmen through Sarva Shri B. D. Sharma, Kan Raj, Achaleshwar Sharma and G. S. Saxena represented by the Secretary of the Union. In the reference there is no mention that there was a dispute between the employer and employers which has necessitated the reference. Before the Tribunal also no evidence of any such dispute between the employers and employers appears to have been placed. The Tribunal has drawn this inference from the mere circumstance that some of the members of the Union are also the members of the Society and these members must be taken to be employers who held views contrary to the management with regard to the orders passed against Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. This by itself would not be sufficient to hold that there was a dispute between an employer and employers. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It appears that the Union took up the cause of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who were also the members of the Union and made a representation to the Government. It is conceded on behalf of the Union that the majority of the of Union were employees of the Northern Railway but it is urged that it could take up the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 as they were also its members. It is pointed out that the words 'any person' in the definition of industrial dispute is wide enough to cover a case in which the employees of one establishment could take up the cause of another establishment. The limitations to be imposed and the width of the expression 'any person' occurring in the definition clause has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1) certain limitations were formulated and approved. One of such limitations were formulated and approved is that the industrial dispute which is raised by workmen must relate to the particular establishment or part of the establishment in which the workmen are employed so that the definition clause may be consistent with Sec. 18 of the Act. This matter was again considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists Vs. The Hindu, Bombay and another (2), and it was observed, as follows: - "the principle that the persons who seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute, in our view, applies to this class of cases also; persons who are not employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested, that by their support they may convert an individual dispute under an industrial dispute. The mere support to his cause by the Bombay Union of Journalists cannot therefore assist the claim of Salivateeswaran so as to convert it into an industrial dispute. " In this case respondents Nos. 2-5 cannot by the support of the employees of the Northern Railway, even though they may be the members of the same Union, convert the individual dispute into an industrial dispute. It is only the employees of the society who can take up the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and thereby convert the matter into an industrial dispute. We have therefore to ignore in this case the fact that the employees of the Northern Railway have taken up the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The Tribunal has laid emphasis on the fact that the amenities which are enjoyed by the employees of the Railway have been extended to the employees of the Society by the railway authorities and this circumstance places them on par with the employees of the railway. In our opinion, by the mere fact that: the railway authorities have permitted them the use of certain amenities and privileges available to the railway employees, it cannot be said that the employees of the society have become the employees of the railway.
(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 2 to 5 had their disputes with the management of the society. It is urged on behalf of the Union that these respondents acted collectively in placing their representation before the Government of Rajasthan through the Divisional Secretary of the Union and the Union also passed a resolution taking up the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Thus, respondents No. 2 to 5 were acting in concert and were acting collectively, one adopting the cause of the other to, place their grievances against the management of the society before the Government through the Divisional Secretary of the Union. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that under the rules of the Union respondents Nos. 2 to 5 could not become the members of the Union and as such their member ship of the Union should not be taken into account. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were in fact members of the Union, and at least this can be said that when the Union passed a resolution on the 15th of June 1957, all the members of the Union took up the cause of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. It may be that the taking up of the cause by the members of the Union who are employees of the Railway is not of much assistance to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in raising their disputes to the level of industrial dispute but so far as respondents Nos. 2 to 5 themselves are concerned, this resolution is prima facie evidence of the fact that each one took up the cause of the other. According to the allegations set forth in the petition, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were acting in concert from the beginning and it will be too much to say that when they were making the representation through the Divisional Secretary of the Union, they were acting individually. We are of the opinion that RESPONDENTS Nos. 2 to 5 were each espousing the cause of the other when they made representations to the Rajasthan Government through the Divisional Secretary of the Union. The only point that remains to be determined in this case is whether in the circumstances of the case it can be taken that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by thus espousing the cause of each other convert their individual grievances into an industrial dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that unless their cause is supported by the other employees of the society there can arise no industrial dispute. We cannot accept the extreme proposition that unless a cause or a grievance is supported by the other employees of the same employment who are not aggrieved, there can be no industrial dispute so as to call for a reference. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Take for example a case in which all the workmen of a particular establishment may feel aggrieved because of the action of the employer. There will be no employee who is not aggrieved. It will be difficult to hold that in such a case there will be no industrial dispute. This may be further illustrated by taking the example. V Suppose that in a particular establishment the workmen have the grievance that the establishment is not granting bonus. All the employees of the establishment are aggrieved on that account and there is no employee who is not aggrieved. There may not be any employee who is not aggrieved to support that demand, yet it will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. What is to be seen is whether a substantial number of workmen of a particular establishment have taken up the cause of the aggrieved person or persons. As already observed, this depends upon circumstances of each case. In this particular case according to the petitioner there were 11 employees. Out of them 4 have been affected by adverse orders passed by the management of the society against them. These persons have taken up the cause of one another and have made representation to the Raj. Govt. The Raj. Govt. was satisfied that there was an industrial dispute and referred the dispute to the Tribunal under sec. 10 of the Act. The Tribunal is also of the view that there was industrial dispute for decision. It will be not proper for us to hold while exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction that substantial number of employees are not raising an industrial dispute. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Bombay Union of Journalists' case that - "in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute the test is whether at the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. " It was further observed in that case that "if Venkataswaran or Tiwari had prior to the date of the reference supported the cause of Salivateeswaran by their subsequent affidavits the reference could not have been invalidated. " Whether the four aggrieved persons by themselves constituted an appreciable number of workmen in the present case is a question of fact and the Government which is the statutory authority to be satisfied whether an industrial dispute exists or not was so satisfied. We do not think that it would be proper for us to interfere in this matter. The Writ petition is therefore dismissed. .;