1978 (2) TMI 230 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns Industrial Tribunal award, emphasizes persistent demands can establish industrial dispute validity.

Shambu Nath Goyal Versus Bank of Baroda

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Industrial Tribunal's award, and remitted the matter for disposal according to law. The Court directed ... - Issues:Industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of a workman due to lack of demand made by the workman on the management before approaching the Conciliation Officer.Analysis:The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, regarding an industrial dispute between a workman and the Bank of Baroda. The workman, a clerk, was dismissed from service, leading to the dispute. The Tribunal rejected the dispute, stating that no demand had been made by the workman to the bank, rendering the reference to the Tribunal incompetent. The key issue was the requirement of a demand by the workman before an industrial dispute could be considered.The Bank of Baroda raised a preliminary objection that no demand had been made by the workman, thus no industrial dispute existed. The Tribunal upheld this objection, leading to the rejection of the reference. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that a dispute or difference connected with employment or terms of employment constitutes an industrial dispute. The Court clarified that a written demand is not mandatory for the existence of an industrial dispute, except in cases of public utility services.The Court highlighted that an industrial dispute requires a real and substantial difference with persistency and continuity. It emphasized that the requirement of a written demand would amount to rewriting the law. The Court also discussed the power of the government to refer disputes under Section 10(1) of the Act, stating that it is an administrative act. The Court noted that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the reference based on the lack of a demand, as evidence showed the workman had persistently demanded reinstatement.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and remitted the matter for disposal according to law. The Court directed the respondent to pay the costs of the appellant and urged the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings due to the reference's age. The judgment emphasized that the existence of an industrial dispute does not hinge solely on a written demand and that persistent demands by the workman can establish the dispute's validity.