PPTS LABOUR LAW EXPLAINING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, Schemes and Mind Maps of Labour Law

Download PPTS LABOUR LAW EXPLAINING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE and more Schemes and Mind Maps Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity!

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Definition of Industrial Dispute S. 2 (q) " Industrial dispute " means ▪ any dispute or difference (i.e. Factum of dispute) ▪ between employers and employers, or between employers and workers, or between workers and workers, (i.e. Parties to Dispute) ▪ which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, (i.e. Subject-matter of dispute) ▪ of any person; ▪ And includes dispute out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination (inclusion) ▪ Industry and Industrial dispute : The dispute should relate to an ‘industry’. It is not possible to conceive an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, unless and until all the four conditions stand satisfied. ◦ (^) The definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in s. 2(q), can be divided into four parts for the purpose of discussion in this section as details hereinafter:

Factum of Dispute: I

1. The ‘dispute’ or ‘difference’ should be real dispute and not a vague one. * Mere apprehension of dispute is not sufficient. Demand should be made (not necessarily in writing) and the same must be rejected to constitute differences leading to dispute.
2. The ‘dispute’ or ‘difference’, however, must be something fairly definite and of real substance and not merely a personal quarrel, a grumbling or an agitation ie with some element of persistency and continuity till resolved. If not adjusted, to endanger the industrial peace of the community.
3. Disputes of substance: in which both the parties are themselves directly and substantially interested’. ◦ It must also be a grievance felt by the worker, which the employer is in a position to remedy.

◦ Since such a dispute may arise between different

parties, the definition equally contemplates disputes

between ‘employers and employers’ or between

‘employers an workmen’ or between ‘workmen and

workmen’. The definition further shows that certain

types of disputes can never fall within its ambit. For

example, disputes between a government and an

industrial establishment or between workmen and

non-workmen, are not the kinds of disputes of which

the definition takes notice.

◦ As a dispute raised by the worker by making certain

demands on the employers, which he declines,

becomes an industrial dispute, so also a dispute

arising out of demands made by the employer and

rejected by the worker becomes an industrial

dispute.

◦ An ‘industrial dispute’ cannot be said to exist until

and unless a demand is made by the worker to the

employer and it has been rejected by him. Mere

demand, asking the appropriate government to refer

the dispute for adjudication, without a dispute being

raised by the workmen with their employer, regarding

such demand, cannot become an industrial dispute.

[ Sindhu Resettlement Corpn Ltd. V Industrial Tribunal of

Gujarat (1978)]

◦ When the demand was raised for the first time before

conciliation officer is not industrial dispute – [ Feeders

Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1970)].

◦ Dismissal case

◦ in Needle Industries (1986), the Madras High Court held

that a dispute or difference, between the management

and the workman, automatically arises, when the

workman is dismissed from the service. Nowhere does

the Act contemplates that an industrial dispute can

come into existence in any particular, specific or

prescribed manner. Nor is there any particular or

prescribed manner in which the refusal should be

communicated. For an ‘industrial dispute’ to come into

existence, a written claim is not a sine qua non.

◦ (^) Nature of dispute: An ‘industrial dispute’ need not be a ‘conflict of interest’ or an economic dispute; it may also be a ‘conflict of rights’ or a ‘legal’ dispute. This is to say, while an ‘industrial dispute’ is most usually thought of as a dispute concerned with what the terms of employment ought to be, i.e., with the negotiation of New terms of employment (conflict of interest), a dispute is equally ‘connected with the terms of employment, if it is concerned with the interpretation of the existing terms or with their enforcement ( conflict of right ). ◦ However, such dispute between the parties, will not include mere ideological contests or differences. This, a workman may have ideological differences with the employers, a workman may feel sympathetic for an employee in his own industry or in another industry; a workman may feel seriously agitated about the conditions of labour outside our own country; but it is absurd to suggest that any of these factors would entitle a worker to raise an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of s 2(q)

Worker and Worker

◦ It may happen, though rarely, that the

dispute is between two sets of worker in the

same establishment; such a dispute has been

brought within the ambit of the industrial

dispute.

◦ The dispute must be between the worker as

such, for whom trade unions may, of course,

act in a representative capacity, but a

dispute between trade unions as such, is a

pure inter-union dispute and cannot be an

industrial dispute.

Collective Industrial Dispute ◦ (^) Even if at the inception, a dispute is initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient number of workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. However, a dispute which continues to retain its individual character cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute. ◦ (^) It is not necessary that majority should take up an industrial dispute. It is sufficient if a substantial group of workmen take it up. ◦ (^) Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Western India Match Co. Workmen’s Union (1970), it was held that the only condition for an individual dispute turning into an industrial dispute is the necessity of community of interest. The community of interest must exist at the time of reference. If subsequently, the workmen withdraw their support, then also the nature of those dispute would remain an ‘industrial dispute’. ◦ (^) Community of interest in relation to workman, does not mean that the concerned workman be the member of some trade union.

Espousal by the Trade Unions

◦ In Nellai Cotton Mills v LC (1965), the Madras HC held

that the mere fact that a substantial number of the

workmen of the establishment in which the

concerned workman was employed, were also

members of the union, would not constitute an

espousal. It must be shown that they participated in

or acted together and arrived at an understanding by

a resolution or by other means and collectively

supported the dispute.

◦ The Tribunal has, therefore, to consider the question

as to how many of the fellow workmen actually

espoused the cause of the concerned workman by

participating in the particular resolution of the union.

◦ Other words, there should be some expression of collective will

of a substantial or an appreciable number of workmen, treating

the cause of the individual workman as their own cause.

◦ For e.g. – A retired workman cannot raise an industrial dispute

against his former employer, it would however be open to the

trade union to raise a dispute, and the workmen could espouse

the cause of a person, who at one point of time had been

workman and only ceased to be so on retirement.

◦ It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered

trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it is shown that a

body of a substantial number of workmen, either acting through

a union or otherwise, had sponsored the workman's cause, it

would be sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute.

Subject

matter of

the

dispute :III

◦ The dispute must relate to the matters

provided in the definition. It must be

connected with

◦ the employment or non-employment or

◦ the terms of the employment or

◦ with the conditions of labour

◦ of any person.

◦ Unless a dispute is connected with these

matters, it will not satisfy the requirements of

law and will not fall within the ambit of

industrial dispute.

◦1. the “employment or non-employment” is concerned with the employers failure or refusal to employ a workman. ◦2. The expression “terms of employment” refers to all terms and conditions stated in the contract of employment. The expression terms of employment would also include those terms which are understood and applied by parties in practice or, habitually or by common consent without ever being incorporated in the Contract ( Workmen v_. Hindustan Lever Ltd.,_ 1984 1 SCC 392). ◦Eg- Payment of pension can be a subject matter of an industrial dispute ( ICI India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer L.C., 1993 LLJ II 568). ◦3. The expression “condition of labour” is much wider in its scope and usually it was reference to the amenities to be provided to the workmen and the conditions under which they will be required to work. The matters like safety, health and welfare of workers are also included within this expression. ◦ (^) The dispute must relate to the matters provided in the definition. It must be connected with ◦ (^) the employment or non-employment or ◦ the terms of the employment or ◦ with the conditions of labour ◦ (^) of any person. ◦ (^) Unless a dispute is connected with these matters, it will not satisfy the requirements of law and will not fall within the ambit of industrial dispute.