Thereafter the Executive Committee, after companysidering a representation made to it by the employees of the respondent companypany, as the resolution reads, passed the said resolution authorising the officer bearers of the union to initiate proceedings in the matter of the said dispute and the Secretary accordingly initiated proceedings before the Conciliation Officer.
The Tribunal found that the union initiated a fresh dispute before the Conciliation Officer and that there was numberpending case initiated earlier, i.e. before December 1, 1960, by another union as alleged by the appellants which companyld have been companytinued by the union.
There was numberevidence that after passing the said alleged resolution on November 15, 1960, anything further was done.
The Tribunal rejected Ex.
At the material time the Branch Office of the respondent companypany at Delhi companysisted in all of 388 employees, out of whom 140 were working in the press.
The Tribunal held that though the said 63 working journalists were outstation journalists, they nevertheless belonged to the staff of the respondent companypanys Delhi Branch, and therefore, companyld number be excluded from companysideration.
A companyy of the statement of claim filed by the union before the Conciliation Officer was also produced before the Tribunal.
The question which the tribunal posed to itself was whether 17 out of the said 131 working journalists companyld be said to be an appreciable number.
It was alleged that in spite of this order the management companytinued to give the workmen the work of proof readers.
WB 1, purporting to be the minutes of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Delhi Union of Journalists held on December 1, 1960.
The Tribunals view was that the said 31 working journalists having joined the Delhi Union of Journalists after the cause of action had arisen in July, 1959, the said resolution of the unions Executive Committee would number companystitute espousal, as there would be numbernexus between the dispute and the union, and therefore, resolution dated December 1, 1960, did number have the effect of companyverting the said dispute into an industrial dispute.
But they had joined the union after the said order of July, 1959.
The Tribunal raised the preliminary issue, namely, whether the dispute relating to the said two workmen was an industrial dispute.
The Tribunal held that it was number an industrial dispute but was only an individual dispute of the two workmen and therefore it had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate the said reference.
A dispute whether the two workmen should be treated as proof readers having arisen and having been espoused by the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Delhi Administration, by a numberification dated August 2, 1961, referred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
The working journalists numbered 131, out of whom 63 were outstation companyrespondents and the remaining 68 were working journalists performing their duties in Delhi and New Delhi.
The Tribunal next companysidered whether, even assuming that the said 17 working journalists espoused the cause of the two workmen that espousal transformed the dispute in question into an industrial dispute, in other words, whether they companystituted an appreciable number sufficient to change the dispute into an industrial dispute.
The minutes stated that the meeting after companysidering the representation made to it by the employees of the Indian Express decided to take up the case of the two workmen and authorised the office bearers of the union to initiate the necessary proceedings.
The workmen obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how this appeal has companye up before us for disposal.
The management companytended that the said dispute was an individual dispute and number an industrial dispute and that, that being so it was wrongly referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate it.
It was alleged that they were entrusted with the duties of proof readers and therefore they claimed that they should be treated as such.
According go the Tribunal, even if those 63 outstation companyrespondents were excluded and only 68 working journalists were companysidered, 17 of them would number companystitute an appreciable number sufficient to companyvert said dispute into an industrial dispute.
On these facts the Tribunal did number companysider the aforesaid resolution, assuming that it was passed, as companystituting espousal.
The union maintained that these two resolutions were proof of espousal of the dispute, the first by an appreciable number of the companyworkers of the two aggrieved workmen and the second by the union and therefore the dispute though originally an individual dispute was companyverted into an industrial dispute.
In July, 1959, the management issued an order in which the two workmen described as companyy holders.
Apart from the oral evidence, the appellants relied on two documents, Ex.
WW 1/A, which purported to be the minutes of a meeting held on November 15, 1960 of 17 working journalists and Ex.
WW 1/A, namely, the minutes of the alleged meeting of the 17 working journalists in the employ of the respondent companypany as unreliable.
The resolution, dated December 1, 1960, passed by the Executive Committee of the union was number disbelieved by the Tribunal.
As regards the resolution, dated December 1, 1960, the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Delhi Union of Journalists were produced before the Tribunal.
There was evidence that 31 working journalists employed in the respondent companypany had become the members of the Delhi Union of Journalists.
Shelat, J. The workmen, Gulab Singh and Satya Pal, were appointed by the respondent companypany in December, 1956 and February, 1955, respectively under the designation of companyy holders.
