Collective espousal required for an industrial dispute; a lone workman's grievance remains outside the Act.

A dispute raised only by a single workman, without espousal by a union or a substantial body of workmen, is treated as a private grievance rather than an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The text reads the statutory scheme as collective in character, aimed at industrial peace, prevention of strikes and lock-outs, and resolution of disputes affecting workmen as a class. Provisions on conciliation, tribunal procedure, representation, interim service conditions, and the binding effect of awards are said to support that collective construction. On that basis, a purely individual dispute does not acquire industrial-dispute status, and the reference is described as incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dispute raised by a single workman, not espoused by a union or a substantial body of workmen, constitutes an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as a whole and its object was found to be the maintenance of industrial peace, prevention of strikes and lock-outs, and settlement of disputes affecting workmen as a class. The definition of industrial dispute, though wide, was held not to include a purely individual grievance unless the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them made common cause with the individual workman. The provisions relating to conciliation, tribunal procedure, representation, prohibition on prejudicial alteration of service conditions during pendency, and the binding effect of awards all pointed to collective industrial controversy rather than a private employment dispute. The contrary view was rejected, and the reference was held incompetent because the dispute had never acquired the character of an industrial dispute.

Conclusion: A dispute between an employer and a single workman, without espousal by workmen as a collective body, is not an industrial dispute under the Act. The reference and the award were therefore without jurisdiction and the appeal succeeded.

---