dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen.
The effect of the support to the cause of Salivateeswaran by the Indian Federation of Working Journalists and the claim founded thereon does number call for any detailed companysideration.
The draft resolution sought to support the case of the Bombay Union of Journalists before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, and to direct the Union to fight the case with all its strength.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated October 3, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference T. No.
Ho further stated I am of opinion that we must produce some document whereby it will be possible to prove that the Federation had supported Salivateeswarans case and requested the Federation to send a document in the form of a minute of a meeting or a letter or a resolution and if there was numbere such on the record, to pass a fresh resolution supporting the Bombay Unions action regarding Salivateeswarans case and to send the same by return of post.
Taking a clue from this letter, on July 24, 1959, the President of the Federation sent a companyy of the resolution alleged to have been adopted by the members of the Working Committee of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists regarding Salivateeswarans case.
In paragraph 33 of the statement of claim it was stated that more than 200 members of the Union had written to the Union supporting the working journalist Salivateeswaran and urging the Union to take up his case under Industrial Dis putes Act, but there was numberreference to the reso lution dated April 17, 1958.
After the reference was submitted and it was pending hearing before the Tribunal a letter was written by the President of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists to the General Secretary of the Bombay Union of Journalists on April 16, 1959, stating that the Federation had lent support to Salivateeswaran in the writ petition filed by The Hindu in the Supreme Court and that the Federation did so as it was a test case.
The letters requesting the Union to espouse the cause of Salivateeswaran were written between April 9 and April 15, 1958, and it is suggested that the matter was taken up in the meeting of April 17.
Between April 9, 1958, and April 15 1958, four letters were addressed by 225, members of the Union amongst whom Venkateswaran was number included informing the Union that the termination of employment of Salivateeswaran.
The resolution was number mentioned even in the statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal.
1 1959 S. C. R 1.
When Venkateswaran was examined on June 12, 1959, he was number asked in cross examination about the resolution.
Another letter dated April 17, 1959, was addressed by the General Secretary of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists to the General Secretary, Bombay Union of Journalists Bombay, stating that they had advised Salivateeswaran to file a petition before the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court in Bombay and had also intervened in the Supreme Court, and further that the Federation fully supported all actions taken by the Bombay Union of Journalists to get justice for Salivateeswaran, The Secretary of the Union by letter dated July 9, 1959, wrote to the President and Secretary General of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists that Salivateeswarans case was being heard for a week and that Salivateeswaran was to undergo cross examination on the next day and that Mahatame, the previous Secretary was to give evidence.
Even when Salivateeswaran was examined the resolution was number produced it was for the first time produced on July 9, 1959.
On April 25, 1958, the Union wrote to the Proprietor of The Hindu Bombay to settle the dispute raised by Salivateeswaran.
If Venkateswaran or Tiwari had prior to the date of the reference supported the cause of Salivateeswaran, by their subsequent affidavits the reference companyld number have been invalidated.
After returning from his tour of Europe, Salivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinstatement and called upon the management of The Hindu to treat the period of his absence out of India as leave.
22 of 1961.
Ramaswamy, E. Udavarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for the appellants.
But as we have already observed there was, in fact, numbersupport to the cause of Salivateeswaran by Venkateswaran or by Tiwari and therefore the dispute companytinued to remain an individual dispute.
If the dispute was in its inception an individual dispute and companytinued to be such till the date of the reference by the Government of Bombay, it companyld number be companyverted into an industrial dispute by support subsequent to the reference even of workmen interested in the dispute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
Salivateeswaran having persisted in carrying out his project by letter dated February 29, 1956, he was informed by the Management that lie ceased to be a companyrespondent of The Hindu from March 1, 1956.
Ramamurthy Iyer and R. Gopalkrishnan, for the respondent No.
The Hindu, Bombay addressed a letter on February 15, 1956, to the Managing Editor of The Hindu a daily newspaper published at Madras intimating that he was proceeding to Europe on March 1, 1956.
September 27.
This resolution is alleged to have been passed by circulation after the companymencement of the adjudication proceedings.
On February 16, 1956, the Assistant Editor of The Hindu informed Salivateeswaran that even though the latter was number a full time employee of The Hindu, they companyld number allow frequent breaks in the performance of of his duties and that they would have to relieve him of his duties as companyrespondent from March 1, 1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him.
33 of 1959.
Beyond the bare statement of Mahatame supported by the interested testimony of Salivateeswaran there, is numberreliable evidence that in the meeting of the 17th the Secretary moved the resolution about Salivateeswaran and it was adopted without opposition the documentary evidence which should numbermally have been in existence if the case that the Union passed a resolution on April 17, 1958, was true, has number been produced on the plea either that it was number maintained or that it was destroyed.
J. This is an appeal with special leave against an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH.
If the meeting of April 17 was an adjourned meeting the previous meeting being of April 5 in the agenda there companyld be numberreference to the companysideration of these letters and it companyld number take up fresh matters.
By its resolution dated August 16, 1956, the Bombay Union of Journalists supported the claim of Salivateeswaran in the application filed by him under s. 17 of Act 45 of 1955.
