
This Article is Written by Nanditha k s of 2nd Year LL. B of IFIM Law School
ABSTRACT
A history of industrial dispute can be traced to the British era as workers were exploited heavily. From the Employers and Workmen’s Disputes Act of 1860 to the current Industrial Relations Code of 2020 in India, the development and growth of central legislative measures over industrial disputes can be examined and studied. The article primarily highlights the meaning, differences, and jurisprudence of industrial disputes and individual disputes. The article further explores the nuances of ‘industrial dispute and ‘individual dispute’ under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (hereinafter; the act).
Keywords
Individual Dispute, Industrial dispute, Definition of Individual dispute and Industrial dispute, Factors That Turn Individual Disputes into Industrial Disputes.
MEANING OF THE TERMS ‘INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE’ AND ‘INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE’.
‘Industrial dispute’ and ‘Individual dispute’ are indispensable terms under laws related to labor. With the pretext of labor law for these terms they can be simply understood as follows: An industrial dispute is a disagreement or conflict between an employer and their employees that arises from a disagreement over the terms and conditions of employment. Here, the stake is shared by the entire or by a group of employees. On the other hand, an individual dispute is a conflict or disagreement between an employer and an individual employee, rather than a group of employees.
JURISPRUDENCE BEHIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE’ AND ‘INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE’
The remedial mechanisms given by the legislators under the act are different for each type of dispute. The primary measure for individual disputes is approaching a conciliation officer. Whereas, for an industrial dispute collective bargaining is the initial means. The two types of disputes are treated distinctly because of the amount of impact they make. Industrial disputes have larger implications on the social and economic front for large groups of workmen. From wage rate to working conditions of the laborers industrial disputes has the potential to disrupt an entire line of industries drastically affecting the economy of the country. On the contrary, individual disputes are more of a private disagreement between an employer and employee affecting only two parties. Therefore, a distinction between disputes is essential for the functional implementation of the statute.
CAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
Industrial disputes might arise dues to several factors like disagreements about working hours, working conditions, bonuses, gratuity, wages, provident fund, dearness allowance, leaves, and holidays. The disputes might also arise due to managerial issues such as discrimination in the workplace, faulty recruitment procedure, non-recognition of trade unions, and issues related to leadership and collective bargaining. Political influence and government policies also contribute to the commencement of industrial disputes.
MECHANISMS TO RESOLVE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES UNDER THE ACT
Apart from the grievance redressal mechanism which the industry might have, the Act provides for various other remedies such as conciliation (done through a conciliation officer), arbitration (through a third party), adjudication (through courts), and negotiation (through collective bargaining).
DEFINITION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE’ UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (AMENDMENT) ACT, OF 2010.
Section 2(k) of the act states, ‘industrial dispute’ as “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 labor, of any person.”[1] Thus, ‘industrial disputes’ essentially include discord or disagreement emerging between employer and employee(s) or between workmen and workmen due to the terms of the employment or due to unsatisfied labor conditions. The fundamental difference between industrial disputes and individual disputes is the common interest shared. Industrial disputes are disputes arising from or supported by trade unions or supported by a significant number of employees. While individual disputes are conflicts restricted between an employer and employee and not supported by trade unions or other workmen. Several Supreme Court decisions have discussed the factors that can turn an individual dispute into an industrial dispute.
In N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and others, the Calcutta High Court has given the meaning of industrial dispute as a conflict that involves trade unions and collective bargaining. The dispute should influence on the community level ‘affecting large groups of workmen.’[2]
AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2010
Section 2A does not change the definition but is an addition to it. The provisions state that any dispute between an employee and employer even when a trade union or group of workmen does not support the employee will be considered as an industrial dispute in the following scenarios of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination. As a result, the differences between industrial disputes and individual disputes become narrow. Thus, the legislation has encouraged employees to be vocal about their rights by classifying a set of individual disputes into industrial disputes as industrial disputes have different remedial mechanisms. However, other disagreements or conflicts arising over reduction in rank, wage payment, bonus, gratuity, transfer, promotion, increments, etc. shall be necessarily considered as individual disputes until it is espoused by a sufficient number of workmen.[3]
INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM ‘ANY PERSON IN SECTION 2(K)
All the terms used in section 2(k) are already defined under the act. For instance, terms like employee, employer, workmen, etc. Courts have interpreted the meaning of ‘any person’ through various case laws. Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimkuchi Tea Estate[4] is a landmark judgment that laid down the meaning of ‘any person’ in section 2(k) of the act. Any person shall be a person with ‘direct and substantial interest’[5] in the case. Nonetheless, the court has established two limitations:
- The dispute should not be imaginary; it should be real and should have the scope of being resolved through adjudication.
- The person should be strictly directly related to the case, though he may not fall under the meaning of workman under Section 2(s) of the act.
In Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd v. Their Workmen[6], the issue raised was with regard to the abolition of contract labor. The workmen protested against employing contract labor for cleaning the refinery in the company. The court held that the workmen do fall under the scope of ‘any person’ as they have ‘direct and substantial interest’ in the case as their position as workmen is being affected.
FACTORS THAT TURN INDIVIDUAL DISPUTES INTO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
Certain characteristics present in individual disputes enable individual disputes to be considered industrial disputes. Let us look into landmark judgments that have laid down such characteristics.
In Newspaper Ltd, Allahabad v. State Industrial Tribunal, U. P[7]. case, Tejammul Husain who was working as a Lino Operator was dismissed from work because of the complaints made against him by his co-workers. He was espoused by the U. P. Working Journalists’ Union and was also represented in the court of law by the President of the Union. The union was in no way connected to the employee and the employee was not a member of the union also. The company (the opposite party) argued that the employee cannot be represented by the union. The Allahabad High Court held that even when the dispute is raised by a single employee or workman it can be considered an industrial dispute if the matter is espoused or sponsored by a sufficient number of workmen or by a union. The opposite party also argued that as the employee was not working in the company when the case was referred it does not constitute become industrial dispute rather it is an individual dispute. The court held that even disputes arising out of non-employment can be considered industrial disputes as per the definition given in the act.
In [8] case, a workman was dismissed from employment on the grounds that he has stolen from the Company. The same was proved during the company’s internal inquiry proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the workmen took the matter to the court. The company argued that a dispute between an employer and an employee does not amount to an industrial dispute. The court held that as per the General Clauses Act, 1897 every plural term beholds singular also within. Hence, a conflict between an employee and an employee can be considered as an industrial provided he is espoused by enough number of workmen or by a Central Transport Services Ltd, Nagpur V. Raghunath Gopal union.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate[9] is a landmark case in the history of industrial dispute. Dr. K.P. Banerjee was working as an Assistant Medical Officer on Probation. He was later dismissed without notice and a month’s salary. The Estate argued this cannot be considered an industrial dispute as Dr. Banerjee is not an employee of the Estate. The court gave a wide interpretation of the phrase ‘any person’ under Section 2(k) of the Act. The court held that ‘any person’ cannot be defined to a narrow interpretation and it includes even non-employees or non-workmen also if he has reasonable nexus with the dispute. Also, if the dispute holds ‘community interest’ or welfare of the labor in general.
A settlement arrived between Mankantha Distillery and their workmen union before the Conciliation Officer in the case of the State of Bihar vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal[10]. However, the union was not registered at the time of settlement. The same by challenged by the Distillery before the court of law. The court held that though industrial disputes need to be a collective dispute it does necessarily mean a registered union should espouse it or a maximum number of workmen should support it. The court emphasized the nature of the dispute rather than quantifying the espousal. The judgment was illustrated in the case of Workmen of Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd V. Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd[11]. Two workmen were dismissed from work and five other workmen out of twenty- two espoused the matter. The question was whether non-employment with such minimal espousal can be considered an industrial dispute before the 2A amendment. The court held that even such an espousal of 25% can turn an individual dispute into an industrial dispute.
Date of conversion from ‘individual dispute’ to ‘industrial dispute.’
An employee working in ‘the Hindu’, Bombay was terminated, and the employees’ demand for reinstatement was dismissed. Thus, the matter was taken before the court. One of the material questions which arose, in this case,[12] was what the relevant date was to conclude whether the dispute withholds the character of industrial dispute. The court held that date on which the case was referred must be looked into and ascertain whether the matter was espoused by a sufficient number of workmen or by a union. Later withdrawal of the espousal would remain immaterial to the case.
Quantification of Espousal
In the Working Journalists of the Hindu v. the Hindu[13] case, the question arose as to what the substantial number of workmen is to consider an appreciable number of espousals. The court held that there cannot be a single formula to ascertain a sufficient number of espousals, it will depend on a case-to-case basis. The nature of work and its effect on the laborers should be kept in mind while deciding such questions. Even minor unions or unregistered unions or even disputes among a few workmen can be considered industrial disputes.
CONCLUSION
The differentiation of the disputes as ‘industrial disputes’ and ‘individual disputes’ are not only limited to Indian Labor laws. England has the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to deal with ‘industrial disputes’ and the Employment Rights Act 1996 to deal with ‘individual disputes’ of the workmen. Similarly, the USA, Canada, and Australia too have different sets of statutes to deal with distinct disputes. Though the amendment of Section 2A has strengthened the rights of a workman on an individual basis it has increased the numbering of cases pending before the court. Employees earlier would approach Conciliation Officer for the settlement now due to the amendment they directly approach the courts.
REFERENCES
- Bushan Tilak Kaul, Industry,’ ‘Industrial Dispute,’ And ‘Workman’: Conceptual Framework and Judicial Activism, Vol. 50, No. 1 | Journal of the Indian Law Institute| pp. 3-50 | 22-30 (2008), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952131, last seen 07/05/2023
- What Is Industrial Dispute? Difference Between Industrial Dispute And Individual Dispute, Law Corner,https://lawcorner.in/what-is-industrial-dispute-difference-between-industrial-dispute-and-individualdispute/#:~:text=The%20industrial%20dispute%20conveys%20the%20meaning%20that%20the,registered%20Trade%20Union%20to%20constitute%20an%20industrial%20dispute, last seen 07/05/2023
- Industrial Dispute and Individual Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Law Octopus,https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/industrial-disputes-and-individual-disputes-under-industrial-disputes-act-1947/, last seen 07/05/2023
CASES CITED
- Central Transport Services Ltd, Nagpur V. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, 1957 AIR 104
- N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and others, 1953 AIR 58
- Newspaper Ltd, Allahabad v. State Industrial Tribunal, U. P., AIR 1954 All 516
- RSRTC V. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75, 87
- Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, 1960 SCR (3) 466
- State of Bihar vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal, 1961 SCR (2) 1
- The Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, 1963 AIR 318
- Working Journalists of the Hindu v. the Hindu, (1961) I LLJ 228
- Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimkuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353
- Workmen Of Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd V. Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd, (1962) I LLJ 634 SC
[1] S. 2(k), The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
[2] N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and others, 1953 AIR 58
[3] RSRTC V. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75, 87
[4] Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimkuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353
[5] Ibid,
[6] Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, 1960 SCR (3) 466
[7] Newspaper Ltd, Allahabad v. State Industrial Tribunal, U. P., AIR 1954 All 516
[8] Central Transport Services Ltd, Nagpur V. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, 1957 AIR 104
[9] Supra 4
[10] State of Bihar vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal, 1961 SCR (2) 1
[11] Workmen Of Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd V. Rohtak General Transport Company Ltd, (1962) I LLJ 634 SC
[12] The Boombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, 1963 AIR 318
[13] Working Journalists of the Hindu v. the Hindu, (1961) I LLJ 228
0 Comments