Industrial Disputes and Individual Disputes
under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
April 4, 2015
By Palak Verma & Aditya Tomar
Editor’s Note:This paper discusses the concepts of industrial disputes and individual disputes under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Industrial Dispute-Sec. 2 (k)
Industrial Dispute is “any dispute of 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.”
Industrial dispute as defined under Sec. 2(k) exists between-
Parties to the dispute who may be
Employers and workmen
Employers and Employers
Workmen and workmen
a) There should be a factum of dispute not merely a difference of opinion.
b) It has to be espoused by the union in writing at the commencement of the dispute. Subsequent espousal will render the
reference invalid. Therefore date when the dispute was espoused is very important.
c) It affects the interests of not merely an individual workman but several workmen as a class who are working in an
industrial establishment.
d) The dispute may be in relation to any workman or workmen or any other person in whom they are interested as a body.
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and another [i]: It was held by the
Supreme Court that the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was impliedly barred in cases of the dismissal or removal from
service, The appropriate forum for such relief was one constituted under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Jadhav J. H. vs. Forbes Gobak Ltd.[ii]: In this case, it was held that, a dispute relating to a single workman may be an
industrial dispute if either it is espoused by the union or by a number of workmen irrespective of the reason the union
espousing the cause of workman was not the majority of the union.
When An Individual Dispute Becomes An
Industrial Dispute
Before insertion of Section 2-A of the Act an individual dispute could not8per se8be an industrial dispute, but it could become
one if taken up by the Trade Union or a number of workmen. The Supreme Court and majority of Industrial Tribunals held
that, a dispute raised by a dismissed employee would not be treated as an industrial dispute, unless it is supported by a trade
union or by a body or Section of workman.
For an individual dispute to be declared as an Industrial Dispute, the following conditions are to be satisfied:
1. A body of workmen (trade Union ) or a considerable number of workmen, are found to have made common cause
with the individual workman;
2. That the dispute (individual dispute) was taken up or sponsored by the workmen as a body (trade union) or by a
considerable Section of them before the date of reference.
Bombay Union of Journalists vs. The Hindu[iii]: A person working in ‘The Hindu, Madras’ was terminated for claiming as
full time employee. The Bombay Union of Journalist raised the dispute. It was found that, there were ten employees of
which seven in administrative side and only three in journalism side. Of these three, only two were the members of the
union. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay Union of Journalists is not competent to raise this dispute. Even
if it had raised, it could not have become an industrial dispute.
Workmen of Indian Express Newspapers Ltd. vs. Management Indian Express Newspapers[iv]: A dispute relating to two
workmen of Indian Express Newspapers Ltd, was espoused by the Delhi Union of Journalists which was an outside union.
About 25 percent of the working journalists of the Indian Express were members of that union. But there was no union of the
journalists of the Indian Express. It was held that the Delhi Union of Journalists could be said to have a representative
character Qua the working journalists employed Indian Express and the dispute was thus transformed into an industrial
dispute.
