Industrial dispute sponsorship by an unregistered workmen's body was upheld; new factual objections cannot be raised for the first time in SC.

A retrenchment dispute was treated as an industrial dispute because it had been espoused by a body of workmen; a registered union was not required, and an unregistered association could validly sponsor the workmen's cause. The challenge also failed because no plea was raised before the tribunal that the dispute was not an industrial dispute. On the separate contention that the "first come last go" principle should apply, the Court held that the argument depended on a factual issue not raised before the tribunal or HC and could not be introduced for the first time in the Supreme Court. The award and orders below were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrenchment dispute was an industrial dispute sponsored by a body of workmen, and whether an unregistered association could validly sponsor the workmen's case. (ii) Whether the principle of "first come last go" could be invoked for the first time at the appellate stage in the Supreme Court.

Issue (i): Whether the retrenchment dispute was an industrial dispute sponsored by a body of workmen, and whether an unregistered association could validly sponsor the workmen's case.

Analysis: The finding that the employees' cause had been sponsored by an association of workmen was concurrent in the courts below. The existence of a registered union was not necessary for sponsorship of a workman's dispute; what mattered was that a body of workmen had espoused the cause. The absence of a plea before the tribunal that the dispute was not an industrial dispute also undermined the appellant's challenge.

Conclusion: The dispute was rightly treated as an industrial dispute, and the reference was not invalid for want of registration of the sponsoring body.

Issue (ii): Whether the principle of "first come last go" could be invoked for the first time at the appellate stage in the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The contention that the retrenched employees belonged to a separate department was a question of fact. It had not been raised before the industrial tribunal or the High Court and was not examined in either judgment. A factual objection of this kind cannot be permitted for the first time at the Supreme Court stage.

Conclusion: The contention was not entertainable at the appellate stage and furnished no ground for interference.

Final Conclusion: The award and the orders below were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute sponsored by a body of workmen is an industrial dispute even if the sponsoring body is unregistered, and a purely factual objection not raised below cannot be introduced for the first time in the Supreme Court.

---