The Newspapers Ltd Vs. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P
award on the ground that no industrial dispute existed and that there was no material before the Government on the basis of which it could make a reference. It was held that the dispute as to single workman was not an industrial dispute. AIR 1951 Mad 616 (L) was followed in Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour Madras ILR (1952) Mad 43: (AIR 1951 Mad 141 ) (M) which was a case under S. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act and the right of appeal given to an individual employee against the order of the employer dispensing with his services under S. 41(2) of Madras Shops and Establishments Act was challenged on the ground that it had been taken away by the Central Act. It was held that an individual worker had the right to appeal. Viswanatha Sastri, J. in his judgment referred with, approval to the distinction made between an individual dispute and an industrial dispute in Kandan Textile Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras (L) (supra).31. The second view that such a dispute falls within the definition of the word industrial dispute is supported by a decision of a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal - Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1953-1 Lab LJ 757 (N). There the question was mainly decided on the basis of S.33-A of the Central Act (introduced in 1950) which gives the right to an individual workman dismissed or dealt with contrary to S.33 of the Act during an industrial dispute to raise the matter before a tribunal. The introduction of S.33-A would not alter the construction to be placed on the phrase industrial dispute. On the contrary it supports the view that, an individual dispute is not comprised in that phrase. In view of what has been said above, we are of opinion that in so far as that case lays down that a dispute raised by an individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have been correctly decided.32. The cases which support the third view are the following:33. J. Chowdhury v. M.C. Bannerjee 55 Cal WN 256 (O) was a case in which a lino operator was removed from service on the ground of his negligence and arrears of work. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the Central Act. The Management moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 45 of the Specific Relief Act and it was held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as on a perusal of the various sections of the Central Act including Ss. 10 and 18 the dispute of an individual workman was not covered by the term industrial dispute.34. In Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie and co., 57 CWN 169 : (AIR 1953 Cal 613 ) (P), a suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of wages on the basis of an award of an Industrial Tribunal and one of the issues raised was whether an individual dispute fell within industrial dispute. Following the judgment in 53 Cal WN 256 (O), Bose J. held that it did not.35. Another case in which this view was held is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad ILR 32 Pat 181: (AIR 1953 Pat 321 ) (Q). There the Government, referred the question of dismissal of an employee of an Assurance Co. and it was not proved that his case was taken up by the employees association. The same view was adopted in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Industrial Tribunal ILR (1952) Trav-Co. 432: (AIR 1952 Trav Co 249) (R).36. In Lakshmi Talkies, Madras v. Munuswami, 1955-2 Lab LJ 477 (Mad) (S), Balakrishna Ayyar J. held that an industrial dispute arises where a case of an individual workman is espoused by a union. The same view was taken in Lynus and Co. v. Hemanta Kumar Samanta, 1956-2 Lab LJ 89 (T).37.The view taken in these cases is in accord with the interpretation we have put on the expression Industrial dispute as defined in the U.P. Act or the Central Act. Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, i.e., an individual dispute is comprised in an industrial dispute must unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided.38. In spite of the fact that the making of a reference by the Government under the, Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers,that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned, even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be subject to a partys challenge. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy 1953 SCR 334 at p 347: (AIR 1953 SC 53 at p. 57) (U).39. It may also be noted that the notification issued by the U.P. Government on January 3, 1953 already quoted proceeds on the assumption that a dispute exists between the employer and his workmen. The points of dispute in the reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator. The words used in the first part of the notification show that the Government was labouring under the misapprehension that this dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workman on the othor, which, in fact it was not.Tajammul Hussain could not be termed workmen (in the plural) nor could the U.P. Working Journalists Union be called his workmen nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The very basis, therefore, of the reference was bad and must be held to be so.
1[ds]21. In our opinion therefore Rr. 4,5 and 15 of the Rules cannot be a valid foundation for sustaining the argument raised that an individual dispute was within the definition of industrial dispute. Ordinarily, an award of a tribunal binds or affects the rights of parties to the proceedings but awards of Industrial Tribunals have extended implications and may affect the rights of all workmen of a concern or undertaking and even the future entrants. This doctrine of representation which enlarges the meaning of parties in the U.P. and Central Acts is an essential idea associated with industrial disputes and supports collectiveness as opposed to individualism. See Latham, C.J., in Metal Trades Employers Association v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1935) 54 CLRview of what has been said above, we are of opinion that in so far as that case lays down that a dispute raised by an individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have been correctlyview taken in these cases is in accord with the interpretation we have put on the expression Industrial dispute as defined in the U.P. Act or the Central Act. Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, i.e., an individual dispute is comprised in an industrial dispute must unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided.38. In spite of the fact that the making of a reference by the Government under the, Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers,that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned, even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be subject to a partys challenge. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy 1953 SCR 334   at p 347: (AIR 1953 SC 53   at p. 57) (U).39. It may also be noted that the notification issued by the U.P. Government on January 3, 1953 already quoted proceeds on the assumption that a dispute exists between the employer and his workmen. The points of dispute in the reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator. The words used in the first part of the notification show that the Government was labouring under the misapprehension that this dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workman on the othor, which, in fact it was not.Tajammul Hussain could not be termed workmen (in the plural) nor could the U.P. Working Journalists Union be called his workmen nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The very basis, therefore, of the reference was bad and must be held to be so.
### Instruction:
Judge the probable resolution of the case (approval (1) or disapproval (0)), and elaborate on this forecast by extracting and interpreting significant sentences from the proceeding.

### Input:
award on the ground that no industrial dispute existed and that there was no material before the Government on the basis of which it could make a reference. It was held that the dispute as to single workman was not an industrial dispute. AIR 1951 Mad 616 (L) was followed in Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour Madras ILR (1952) Mad 43: (AIR 1951 Mad 141 ) (M) which was a case under S. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act and the right of appeal given to an individual employee against the order of the employer dispensing with his services under S. 41(2) of Madras Shops and Establishments Act was challenged on the ground that it had been taken away by the Central Act. It was held that an individual worker had the right to appeal. Viswanatha Sastri, J. in his judgment referred with, approval to the distinction made between an individual dispute and an industrial dispute in Kandan Textile Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras (L) (supra).31. The second view that such a dispute falls within the definition of the word industrial dispute is supported by a decision of a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal - Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1953-1 Lab LJ 757 (N). There the question was mainly decided on the basis of S.33-A of the Central Act (introduced in 1950) which gives the right to an individual workman dismissed or dealt with contrary to S.33 of the Act during an industrial dispute to raise the matter before a tribunal. The introduction of S.33-A would not alter the construction to be placed on the phrase industrial dispute. On the contrary it supports the view that, an individual dispute is not comprised in that phrase. In view of what has been said above, we are of opinion that in so far as that case lays down that a dispute raised by an individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have been correctly decided.32. The cases which support the third view are the following:33. J. Chowdhury v. M.C. Bannerjee 55 Cal WN 256 (O) was a case in which a lino operator was removed from service on the ground of his negligence and arrears of work. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the Central Act. The Management moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 45 of the Specific Relief Act and it was held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as on a perusal of the various sections of the Central Act including Ss. 10 and 18 the dispute of an individual workman was not covered by the term industrial dispute.34. In Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie and co., 57 CWN 169 : (AIR 1953 Cal 613 ) (P), a suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of wages on the basis of an award of an Industrial Tribunal and one of the issues raised was whether an individual dispute fell within industrial dispute. Following the judgment in 53 Cal WN 256 (O), Bose J. held that it did not.35. Another case in which this view was held is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad ILR 32 Pat 181: (AIR 1953 Pat 321 ) (Q). There the Government, referred the question of dismissal of an employee of an Assurance Co. and it was not proved that his case was taken up by the employees association. The same view was adopted in Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Industrial Tribunal ILR (1952) Trav-Co. 432: (AIR 1952 Trav Co 249) (R).36. In Lakshmi Talkies, Madras v. Munuswami, 1955-2 Lab LJ 477 (Mad) (S), Balakrishna Ayyar J. held that an industrial dispute arises where a case of an individual workman is espoused by a union. The same view was taken in Lynus and Co. v. Hemanta Kumar Samanta, 1956-2 Lab LJ 89 (T).37.The view taken in these cases is in accord with the interpretation we have put on the expression Industrial dispute as defined in the U.P. Act or the Central Act. Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, i.e., an individual dispute is comprised in an industrial dispute must unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided.38. In spite of the fact that the making of a reference by the Government under the, Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers,that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned, even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be subject to a partys challenge. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy 1953 SCR 334 at p 347: (AIR 1953 SC 53 at p. 57) (U).39. It may also be noted that the notification issued by the U.P. Government on January 3, 1953 already quoted proceeds on the assumption that a dispute exists between the employer and his workmen. The points of dispute in the reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator. The words used in the first part of the notification show that the Government was labouring under the misapprehension that this dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workman on the othor, which, in fact it was not.Tajammul Hussain could not be termed workmen (in the plural) nor could the U.P. Working Journalists Union be called his workmen nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The very basis, therefore, of the reference was bad and must be held to be so.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
21. In our opinion therefore Rr. 4,5 and 15 of the Rules cannot be a valid foundation for sustaining the argument raised that an individual dispute was within the definition of industrial dispute. Ordinarily, an award of a tribunal binds or affects the rights of parties to the proceedings but awards of Industrial Tribunals have extended implications and may affect the rights of all workmen of a concern or undertaking and even the future entrants. This doctrine of representation which enlarges the meaning of parties in the U.P. and Central Acts is an essential idea associated with industrial disputes and supports collectiveness as opposed to individualism. See Latham, C.J., in Metal Trades Employers Association v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1935) 54 CLRview of what has been said above, we are of opinion that in so far as that case lays down that a dispute raised by an individual workman as to his personal grievance is within an industrial dispute, it cannot be said to have been correctlyview taken in these cases is in accord with the interpretation we have put on the expression Industrial dispute as defined in the U.P. Act or the Central Act. Taking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the decisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that they take a contrary view, i.e., an individual dispute is comprised in an industrial dispute must unless there is something peculiar as to facts, be held to have been wrongly decided.38. In spite of the fact that the making of a reference by the Government under the, Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise of its administrative powers,that is not destructive of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute at all and therefore the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned, even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be subject to a partys challenge. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy 1953 SCR 334   at p 347: (AIR 1953 SC 53   at p. 57) (U).39. It may also be noted that the notification issued by the U.P. Government on January 3, 1953 already quoted proceeds on the assumption that a dispute exists between the employer and his workmen. The points of dispute in the reference, however, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of only Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator. The words used in the first part of the notification show that the Government was labouring under the misapprehension that this dispute was between the employer on the one hand and his workman on the othor, which, in fact it was not.Tajammul Hussain could not be termed workmen (in the plural) nor could the U.P. Working Journalists Union be called his workmen nor is there any indication that the individual dispute had got transformed into an industrial dispute. The very basis, therefore, of the reference was bad and must be held to be so.
