# Siviyogesw~a Cotton Press, Devangere v. kl. Panachakshara;pa

- **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 893
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** K. N. WANCHoo, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/siviyogesw-a-cotton-press-devangere-v-kl-panachakshara-pa-2402
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Industrial Di•pute-Individual Dispute-If and when can
be cont'erted into industrial diBpute-Industrial DisputM Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), •· 12 (6).
The first respondent, the 'Hindu', Bo1nbay, which vvas a
nc\vspaper establishment terminated the services of the third
appellant as its correspondent and declined to accede to the
request of the latter for his re-instatement. His case was taken
up and supported by the Bombay Union of Journalists, a trade
union, of which membership was open to all persons depending
on jou1nalism for their livelihood. He was not supported by
any union of the employees of the 'Hindu', Bombay, or a
number of its workmen. The Government referred the dispute
for adjudication under s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1961
Siviyogesw~a Cotton
Press, Devangere
v.
kl. Panachakshara;pa
Sinha C. J.
1961
September 21.
894
SUFR'.EME !OOURT'.REBORTS _ D962]
196(_
1947. The !Industrial Trib.una) rejected 1t\le rertrenFc holding
Tl B b
CJ,.
.~ that the dispute.was merely an.individual dispute bet)Vcen the
11
·il:=n~isl;ion.oJ - 1 Hin~u', B9mbay; and the third appCllant who .had not been
1
v.
s~pported by an ~pp1!eciable number df" emp)oyees of''Hindu',
TIU ~Hindu';1JtJmbay Bombay\ On appeal,
:
~
1
I
r.ife1a,' tha'\ the applicability' of the Indus;~ial Disputes i\ct
to aii'ind~vidual,dispute as distinguished ~from a ldispute~invol
vin_g(a grOt.ip of workmen tis excluded, UnleSs .the .,yorkmen as
a·bOd1nor a considerable section of them make. common' cause
\vith.the individual y.rorkmen.
Central Provinces '('ranpport Semices, Ltfl. v .. Rpvhunath
Gopal.Patwardhar.i, .(I.956) S,.C.R. 956 and !/.'he Newspaper8 Ltd.
v. T,he .State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. (J957) _S.C.R. 754,
followed.
'
Members of a union who were 'not workmen bf the ernplo--
yer against whom the dispute was sought to be Taised could
noti by their ·support convert an individual
dispute~,into an
induslrial dispute. Persons vvho sought to support· the cause of
a ,\'\'Orkman must themselves be directly and sUbstantially inte·
rCstcd in the dispute.and persons who were not '"employees of
the san1e en1ployer could not be regarded as so iiittereStcd.
Workmen of Dimakuchi 7-'ea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi 1'<a Estate, (I 958) S.C.R. 1156, followed.
In each ease in ascertaining whether an individual dispute
h~d,~~quir,ed •the• uhara~ter of aμ industrial c\ispμte, tl;ie. te..'!t
\Vas \Vhether at th~ date of the..refererice the dispuLC Wa'S taken
up and supported by the u'n1old of'workmen of the employer
against whom the dispute \Vas raised by an individual work·
man or by an appreciable number of such wockmen. The
jur1St!iqtion pf ,tl)e Jabour court. jVas not affected , pY .the subsequeril withi:lra'wal of support hy'the ·-:.orkm~n \Vl\o .'originally
sponsorecl the cause. Nor could subsequent support ):>y a union
of concetnCd workmen 'convert what \Vas .in· individu*al dispute
>Oll'the date of'i"efercnce into an . .ind.ustrial ·dispute and 1confer
judsdiction.1.The Hindu v. TJidl;(orking Journalist..of.the Hindu
in Madras, (1959) II L'.L.J. 348 and Working>Journalwt of the
Hindu v. The Hindu (1961) I L.L.J. 288, referred to.
I
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDIOTIOJif: Civil Appeal ~o.
'22 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the awa,rd dated
October 3, .1959, of the Lndustrial Tribunal, Bombay, in'Reference.(I'.T.) No. 33 of 1959.
Ramaswamy, 'E. Udavwrath'n.am and .S. S, ·Shukla,
·'for the dppellants.
•
,
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
895
R. Rammnurthy Iyer and R. Gopnlakr-ishnan, for
tho respondent No. 1.
1961. September 27. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-This is an appeal with special leave
against an award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Bombay.
By its award the Tribunal rejected the
reference boldini( that it had no jurisdiction to adju·
dicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the
Government of Bombay .
Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) whu
claimed to bea full time employee of the first respundent-"The Hindu", Bombay-addressed

## Text

3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
893
Bombay High Court in I.L.R. [1954] Bom. 448. That
deci11ion was, with all respect, entirely correct on
the terms of the document then before the court.
That being so, in our opinion, on a true and proper
construction of the lease deed, the presumption in
favour of the transaction creating a permanent
lease cannot be held to have been rebutted by a
stipulation in favour of the tenant having the
right to surrender the lease at his choice.
That
being so, it must bo held that the lease deed evidences an intention to create a permanent lease.
In view of this finding, it is not necessary to advert
to thtl other· contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants.
For the reasons given above, the appeal must
be allowed; tho judgement and clocreo of the courts
below aro sot aside and the suit giving rise to the
appeal clismis~ed with costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
THE BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND
OTHERS
v.
'rHE 'HINDU', BOMBAY, AND ANOTHER
(K. N. WANCHoo and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Industrial Di•pute-Individual Dispute-If and when can
be cont'erted into industrial diBpute-Industrial DisputM Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), •· 12 (6).
The first respondent, the 'Hindu', Bo1nbay, which vvas a
nc\vspaper establishment terminated the services of the third
appellant as its correspondent and declined to accede to the
request of the latter for his re-instatement. His case was taken
up and supported by the Bombay Union of Journalists, a trade
union, of which membership was open to all persons depending
on jou1nalism for their livelihood. He was not supported by
any union of the employees of the 'Hindu', Bombay, or a
number of its workmen. The Government referred the dispute
for adjudication under s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1961
Siviyogesw~a Cotton
Press, Devangere
v.
kl. Panachakshara;pa
Sinha C. J.
1961
September 21.
894
SUFR'.EME !OOURT'.REBORTS _ D962]
196(_
1947. The !Industrial Trib.una) rejected 1t\le rertrenFc holding
Tl B b
CJ,.
.~ that the dispute.was merely an.individual dispute bet)Vcen the
11
·il:=n~isl;ion.oJ - 1 Hin~u', B9mbay; and the third appCllant who .had not been
1
v.
s~pported by an ~pp1!eciable number df" emp)oyees of''Hindu',
TIU ~Hindu';1JtJmbay Bombay\ On appeal,
:
~
1
I
r.ife1a,' tha'\ the applicability' of the Indus;~ial Disputes i\ct
to aii'ind~vidual,dispute as distinguished ~from a ldispute~invol
vin_g(a grOt.ip of workmen tis excluded, UnleSs .the .,yorkmen as
a·bOd1nor a considerable section of them make. common' cause
\vith.the individual y.rorkmen.
Central Provinces '('ranpport Semices, Ltfl. v .. Rpvhunath
Gopal.Patwardhar.i, .(I.956) S,.C.R. 956 and !/.'he Newspaper8 Ltd.
v. T,he .State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. (J957) _S.C.R. 754,
followed.
'
Members of a union who were 'not workmen bf the ernplo--
yer against whom the dispute was sought to be Taised could
noti by their ·support convert an individual
dispute~,into an
induslrial dispute. Persons vvho sought to support· the cause of
a ,\'\'Orkman must themselves be directly and sUbstantially inte·
rCstcd in the dispute.and persons who were not '"employees of
the san1e en1ployer could not be regarded as so iiittereStcd.
Workmen of Dimakuchi 7-'ea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi 1'<a Estate, (I 958) S.C.R. 1156, followed.
In each ease in ascertaining whether an individual dispute
h~d,~~quir,ed •the• uhara~ter of aμ industrial c\ispμte, tl;ie. te..'!t
\Vas \Vhether at th~ date of the..refererice the dispuLC Wa'S taken
up and supported by the u'n1old of'workmen of the employer
against whom the dispute \Vas raised by an individual work·
man or by an appreciable number of such wockmen. The
jur1St!iqtion pf ,tl)e Jabour court. jVas not affected , pY .the subsequeril withi:lra'wal of support hy'the ·-:.orkm~n \Vl\o .'originally
sponsorecl the cause. Nor could subsequent support ):>y a union
of concetnCd workmen 'convert what \Vas .in· individu*al dispute
>Oll'the date of'i"efercnce into an . .ind.ustrial ·dispute and 1confer
judsdiction.1.The Hindu v. TJidl;(orking Journalist..of.the Hindu
in Madras, (1959) II L'.L.J. 348 and Working>Journalwt of the
Hindu v. The Hindu (1961) I L.L.J. 288, referred to.
I
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDIOTIOJif: Civil Appeal ~o.
'22 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the awa,rd dated
October 3, .1959, of the Lndustrial Tribunal, Bombay, in'Reference.(I'.T.) No. 33 of 1959.
Ramaswamy, 'E. Udavwrath'n.am and .S. S, ·Shukla,
·'for the dppellants.
•
,
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
895
R. Rammnurthy Iyer and R. Gopnlakr-ishnan, for
tho respondent No. 1.
1961. September 27. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-This is an appeal with special leave
against an award of the Industrial Tribunal,
Bombay.
By its award the Tribunal rejected the
reference boldini( that it had no jurisdiction to adju·
dicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the
Government of Bombay .
Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) whu
claimed to bea full time employee of the first respundent-"The Hindu", Bombay-addressed a letter
on February 15, 1956, to tho Managing Editor of
"The Hindu"-a daily newspaper published at
Madras - intimating that he was proceeding to
Europe on March 1, 1956.
On February 16, HJ56,
the Assistant
Editor of "The Hindu" informeC.
Salivateeswaran that even though tho latter was
not a full time employee of "The Hindu", they
could "not a.How frequent breaks in the performance
of" of his duties and that they would have to relieve him of his duties as correspondent from March l,
1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him.
Salivateeswarn having persisted in carrying out his
project by letter dated February 29, 1956, he was
informed by the Management that hu ceased to be
a correspondent of "The Hindu" from March 1,
1956.
After returning from his tour of Europe,
Salivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinstatement and called upon the m'l.nagement of "The
Hindu" to treat the period of his absence out of
India as leave. Tho management of "The Hindu"
having declined to accede to that demand, Salivateeswaran filed an application under s. 17 of the Bombay
Working Journalist (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955, claiming
Rs. 1,57,172-8-0 under diverse heads alleging that
termination of his employment was wrongful and
that it amounted to retrenchment.
The management of "The Hindu" denied that Salivateeswarn
1961
The Bombay Union of
Journalists
v.
Tiu 'Hindu', Bombay
Shah].
Tiu Bomba; L-'nio11 uf
Jow11n/iJ/J
V,
1'/u 'flindu', B'Jmbay
Shah J.
•
8!)6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1()62)
was tht·ir cmploy<'e and submitted that the Authority under Act 45 of I !l55 had no jurisdiction to
<lecidc disputed quest.ions of fact.
The Authority
rejected this contention holding that he was competent to clecide <lisputcd questions arising in the case
bcforo him. Thr management of "The Hindu"'
prcscntC'd a petition under Act. 32 of tho Constitu·
tion for a direction quashing the order of the
Authority, contending th1t s. 17 of the Act did not
empowor the Authority to act as a forum for adjudicating disputed claims. This Court upheld [seo
Ka.,turi and Sans (Private) Ltd. v. Salimtee.m:arnn(')]
tho ple:L of tho i\Ia1mgcmt·nt of "The Hindu", but
dismissed tho petition holding that no f undamcntal
right of the Management was infringed by the order
passed by tho Authority. Acting on tho view
CXJH·css!'d by this Court the Authority declined
to proceed with the appliclltio11, because disput~d
questions of fa"t fell to be dotcrmined in the petition h1Jfore him.
"Th·~ Hindu" had an office in Bombay since
l!l:li. At the material time, "Tho Hindu'' had
besid ~s ::laliva.teeswaran only nine employees-sovcn
serving on the administrative side and two journa·
lists-Venka.teswa.ra.n and Tiwari. Salivateeswa.ra.n
and Venkatoswaran were members of tho Bombay
Union of JournalistH: Tiwari, the other journalist
employee, wa.; not a member of the Cnion.
The
Bomh:w Cnion of .Tournali8ts is a Trade Union, the
membe;·ship of whi<'h iR opon to all persons who
depend for their livelihood upon the practice o{ tho
profos"ion of jounmliRm, including press photographers, artists, cartoonist and frec·lancc writers,
This Cnion is admittedly not a Union of employees
of "The Hindu", Bombay, but it is a Union of all
pcrRon~ who depc11cl for their livelihood upon
journalism in Bombay.
By its resolution elated
August !(), 195!i, the Bombay Cnion of .Journalists
supported the claim of Sa.livateeswarnn in the appli·
cation filed by him under s. 17 of Act 45 of 1!)55.
(I: [1Yl9J S. C.R. I,
• •
..
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
897
Between April 9, 1958, and April 15, HJ58,
four letters were addressed by 225 members of
the Union (amongst whom Venkateswaran was not
included) informing tho Unio11 that the termination
of employment of Salivateeswaran raised "questions
of principle and it was necessary that there should
be a proper adjuclication in which the principles may
be settled" and therefore they supported the cause
of Salivateeswaran and requested the Union to take
all appropriate
steps to approach the state of
Bombay for referring the dispute to an appropriate
tribunal for adjudication under s. 10 ( 1 )( c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
The Union claims that these letters amounted
to a requisition for calling a meeting and that they
were placed before an adjourned meeting of the
General Body on April 17, 1958, held under the
chairmanship of one D. V. Nathan, and in that
meeting it was resolved to support the cause of
Salivateeswaran in the dispute with "The Hindu",
Bombay. On April 25, 1958, the Union wrote to
the Proprietor of "The Hindu" Bombay to settle
the dispute raised by Sa!ivateoswaran. "The Hindu"
Bombay having declined to accede to the request,
the Union moved the Conciliation Officer appointed
under the Industrial Disputes Act to intervene.
The dispute was taken up for Conciliation by the
Conciliation Officer, Bombay, but after holding
~everal meetings with the parties, the Conciliation
Officer by his report dated December 5, 1958, reported failure in his efforts to bring about conciliation.
Thereafter, on .February 9, 1959,
the 1'tate of
Bombay referred the dispute between "The Hindu",
Bombay, and
Salivatecswaran for adjudication
under s. 12(.5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,194 7.
The order of tho Government, the eii'eot whereof
falls for determination in this case is as follows:-
"N o. AJN. 7458-H-Whereas the Government of Bombay has considered the report
submitted by the Conciliation Officer under
sub-section ( 4) of section 12 of the Industrial
1961
The Bombay llriion of
Journalists
v.
The 'llindu', Bombay
Shah].
1961
Tiu Bombqy {)ruwn oj
Jsuruiuts
v.
1'ht j l/Uu/r/, B1mi«y
Sh.ft].
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I!J62]
Disputl•s Aet, 194 7 (XIV of 1!)47), in respect
of the dispute between the Hindu, Bombay
and tho workman (Working Journalists) emp·
loyecl under it over the demandR mentioned
in the Schedule appended hereto;
Aud whereas the Government of llomb:1.y
are considering the afol'usaid report is satiafit·d that there is a case for reference of the
di1p11te to a Tribunal;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
wnfcrred by sub-section (ii) of the Section 12 of
th" Industrial Disputes Aet, i!)4i (XIV of Hl47),
read with Section :l of the 'Vorking Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneot1s Provisions Act, 1955 (XIV of l!J55), the
Government of Bombay hereby referR the
said dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal
consisting of 8hri M. H. Mchcr constituted
under Qo,·ernmcnt· Notification, Labour and
Social Welfare Department, :N"o. IDA. 1157 (b)
dated the 12th lllarch, 1957 ,"
lly tho Schedule, the claim of Saliv11teesmiran to
receive in the aggregate Rs.
1,52,172-8-0 under
diverse heads was set out.
"The Hindu", Dom bay, challenged the compqtcnce of the State GO\·ernment to refer this disp11t(J
011 three grounds: (I) that there was no industrial
establishment of "Tho Hindu" in Bomb~y and, therefore, tlw Industrial Tribunal had 110 jurisdiction in
the matter; (2) that Salivateeswaran was not a
working journalist within the meaning of the Act
and
was not
employed
.i.s such
by
"Tho
Hindu", and there
being
no
relationship of
employer and employee between •·Tho
Hindu."
and
Salivateoswaran, the Industrial
Tribunal
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute
and (3) that there was no dispute between the
Working Journalists of "The Hindu'', Bombay, on
the one hand and the l\Ianagcmcnt on the other
..
..
•
1
, ..
38.C.R.
SUPREME COURT 1tEPORTS
899
and the dispute raised by Salivateeswaran was merely an individual dispute which was not supported by
an appreciable number of employees of "The
Hindu", Bombay. The Tribunal rejected the first
and the second grounds but upheld the third,
;ind holding that the dispute was merely an
individual dispute between Salivateeswaran and
"The Hindu", Bombay, which had
not been
supported by an appreciable number of employees
of "The Hindu", Bombay, the
Government of
Bombay had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to
the Tribunal.
The terms of reference by the Government of
Bombay under s. 12(2) indiPatc that the dispute was
primarily between "The Hindu" Bombay, and the
appellant a-single employee relating to his individual claim in which the other employees of "The
Hindu", Bombay, were, not directly interested. In
Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath
Gopal Patwardhan (1), this Court after setting out
the three possible views on the question whether
a dispute by an individual workman may be regarded as an industria 1 dispute within the meaning
of s. 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
observed, "The preponderance of judicial opinion
is cearly in favour of the last of the three views
stated above (i. e. a dispute between an employer
and a single employee cannot per se be an industrial dispute, but it may become one if it is taken
up by the Union or a number ofworkmen and
.there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the language of s. 2(k) is wide
enough to cover a dispute between an employer and
a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial
Di~putes Act does appear to contemplate that the
machinery provided therein should
be set in
motion, to settle only disputes which involve the
rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute
touching the individual rights of a workman was
not intended to be the subject of an adjudication
under the Act, when the eame ha.d not been taken
(I) [1956] S. C, R. 956.
1961
7 he Bomht.y Union of
Journalists
v.
The 'l!indu', Bombay
Shah ].
1~1
Tlrt BtlffliYly Union of
J1urna/iJtJ
v.
The 'Hind1.1', Bombay
Shah].
!JOO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962(
up by the Union or a number of workmen." This
view was reiterated in The Newspapers f,td. v. The
Suite
Inilu.~trial Trib1mal. U. P. (') Therefore, the
applicability of tho Industrial DisputOll Act to
an individual dispute
as distinguiehed
from a
di putc involving a group of worknwn is excluded,
unless the workmen as a body or a considerable
section of them make common cause with indivi·
dual workman.
The dispute,
in
the present case, boing
prima far.ie, an individual dispute, in order that
it may become an industrial digpute it had to be
established that it had been tak<'n up by tho Union
of employeos of "Tho Hindu",
Bombay, or by
an appreciable number of employees of "Tho
Hindu",
Bombay.
Counsel
for tho appellant
contended that the dispute was supported by tho
Bombay Union of .JournnJists of which Sali\·atceswaran w:~ a member and that, in any event, it
was supported by Venkateswnran and Tiwari, who
w<'rc the only other employees in this establishment. He also contended that in any evt>nt tho
dispute having been takon up by tho Indian Fedorntion of 'Vorking .Journalists after it was referred
to the Tribunal, it had becomo
an industrial dispute.
By its constitution the Bombay Union of Jonrnali><ts is a Union not of omployc<'S of on<' employer, but of all employees in the industry of journaliRm in Bombay.
Support of thn
cause, by
t.ho Union, will not in our judgment convert the>
in,fividu:\l dispute of ono of its momberH into an
industrial
di~pute.
The disput-0 between "The
Hindu", Bombay,
and Sall\,atccswaran was in
re~pcct of alleged wrongful termination of cmploym<"1t; it could acquire tho charaoter of nn ind11Rtriril
dispute only if it. was proved that it was, before
it was referred, supported by tho Union of the
umploy<'"S of "The Hindu", Bombay, or by an
(ll [1957] S. C.R. 754.
I
.
'·
••
•
•.->
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
901
appreciable number of its employees. In Workmen
of Dima!C'l.whi Tea Estate v. The Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1 }. This Court held by a
majority that the two tests of au industrial dispute
as defined by sub-s. (k) of s. 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, must, therefore be-(1) the dispute
must be a real dispute capable of being settled by
relief given by one party to the other and (2) the
person in respect of whom the dispute is raised
must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour
(as the case may be), the parties to the dispute have
a direct or substantial interest, and this must depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. In
that case, certain employees sought to raise a
dispute
about a
person
who
was not
a
workman. In the present case members of the
Union who were not
workmen of the employer against whom the dispute was sought to be
raised, seek by supporting the dispute to convert
what is prima facie an individual dispute into an
industrial dispute.
The principle that the persons
who seek to support the cause of a workman must
themselves be directly and substantially interested
in the dispute in our view ap~lies to this Class of
casea also : persons who are not employees of the
the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested, that by their support they may convert an
individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The
mere support to his cause by the Bombay Union
of J ourna!ists cannot therefore assist the claim of
Salivateeswaran so as to convert it into an industrial dispute.
But counsel for the appelln.nts submits that
Venkateswaran being a
member of the Bombay
Union of J ournaliRts, support of the cause by that
Union amounted to espousnl of the cause by Venkateswaran, and having regttrd to the fact that
there were only three employees who were journalists of "The Hindu", Bombay, out of whom,
(I) ::.958] S. C.R. 1156.
JY!.JJ
The Bombay Union of
Journalists
'
v.
The 'Hindu', Bombay
Shah].
902
SUPREJ\.IB COURT ltEPORTS
(1962]
1161
TkBombq.., Union of
J 011rna li11!s
VPnk:iteswaran had supported the cause, the dispute
arqmred the character of an industrial clisputc.
It is trup that the Executive Committee of the
Bombay Union of ,Journalists had in August 1956,
rcsolw•d to support the cause of Salivateeswaran
\mt that resolution was in respect of the application unrler Act 45 of 19:)5.
Tho Union &ppeared
hefore the Authority appointed by the Government nf Rom bav :me! also in this Court in the
Jl"tition under Art. :l~ of tho Constitution, but
that support cannot, in our judgment asssit the
daim now made
by Sa.livateswaran.
The pro1'1'PtlingR under s. Ii of the 'Working ,Journalists
(Condit ions of Service) Act terminatl'd when the
.-\ut hority rcfnse'\ to proceed with the petition.
Again, there
i~ nothing to show that V<·nkate8waran hail participated in any of these proce<>dings.
v.
Tlit 'I hndu', IJomb<~;·
Sliah .7V{'nkateswaran anrl Tiwari
filed affidavits
lwforc the Tribunal stating that the dispute betwl'en
~alivatepswaran and thP management of
"Tlw Hindu" was purf' ly a personal affair of the
formt>r nnd that thev had not maclc common
1·ause with him in rcg~rd to tlie dispute or adopted
!ii.'< dispntP as their own.
Venkatcswaran and
Tiwari stah·d in their affidavit.q th'lt they bad not
at any t.ime, nor did they support Sa.livateeawaran·H cldm in anv manner.
Vcnkateswaran
:tl~o ,1at<'<l that he had not at any time authorised
th<' Bombay Union of .Journalists to take up
SalivateeHwaran'e "matter" and to raiso the dispute thcr<'on. The affidavitll filed by Vcnkatcswaran :mil Tiwari wen' almost in identical terms
and it ma\' rcasonablv he
inferred that these
<'mploy<'cs had 11ctecl in concert, hut tlu•re is no
r1•ason to Hupposc that they WN<', ns contended by
Sali\·att'cswaran, coerced into filing the affidavits.
Counsel for the appellants strongly relied
upon a re•olution pasRed at. an Extraordin:i-ry
:Meeting of the Bombay Umon of Journ&hste
/
...
-
•
r
3 S.C.R.
SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS
903
dated April 17, 1958, to take up the dispute of
Salivateeswara.n against "The Hindu" under a.10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act to demand reliefs for the
"retrenched
journalist Salivateeswaran".
But
evidence in support of this resolution is very
unsatisfactory. For reasons to be presently set out,
wa are of the view that the evidence tends to
establish the pfoa raised by the first respondent that
the record of the alleged resolution was fabricated
with a view to support the case of Salivateeswaran.
The alleged meeting of April 17, 1958, was
not convened as an Extraordinary General meeting of the Union. It is claimed that it was an
adjourned meeting, the earlier meeting having been
held on April 5, 1958, and adjourned. Mahatamethe Secretary of the Union at the relevant timedeposed that a requisition having been received
for calling a meeting the requisition was considered
in the meeting dated April 17, 1958, anda resolution
supporting the case of Salivateeswaran was passed.
In cross-examination, he admitted that the agenda
of the meeting was not available and that he was
deposing about what happened in the meeting
from memory. He stated that there were cyclostyled
copies of the agenda which were destroyed and no
copiPs were kept; that there was no agenda of the
meeting of April 17 and that no copies of the
notice were maintained; that no minutes of the
General Body meeting were maintained' and that
there was nothing in writing to show who attended
the meetings of April 5 and Ap#l 17 and "all that
happens in General Body melltings is recorded in
annual reports". He admitted that the requisitions
were received after the 5th of April and under the
rules of the Union, 15 days' notice was necessary
for convening a meeting. ,He stated that he had
received all the requisitions before April 17, but
there was no record about
the receipt of the
requisition. According to Mahatame, 225 mem·
bers had signed the requisition and at the meeting
1961
The Bombt1:.'V Union of
.7 ourrw.l i.~ ls
v.
The •f/i11du', Bth'1bay
Shah .J.
'
1981
77¥ BOf11i"Y Union oJ·
]tnll'nll lists
v.
Tht 'Hin,t./, Bom6aJ
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
they had asked the.t the matter be brought up,
but there wa.s no record as to who wa.e present.
Ho aBBerred that the notice of tho meeting de.ted
April 17 waa issued but ho could not say whether
it was iRsued on April 9 or thereafter. It is difficult to accept the testimony of Maha.tame that
even though minutes of the Executive Committee's
meetings were maintained, records relating to the
General Body meetings were not preserved.
Mahatame'e explanation
that the agenda was
cyclostylod an<! thereafter destroyed is too crude
to be accepted. Other circumstances to which we
will presently advert make it abundantly clear
that the story about the resolution having been
paSBed on April 17, 1958, is untrue.
The original reeolution was produced in the
course of the trial as Ext. U-86.
This document
contains inherent evidence that it was not 'made
on April 17, 1958. It purports to be dated April
17, 1958, and bears the signature ofD. V. Nathan,
the president, but by some mischance the year was
originally written as 1959 and then altered to
l!l58.
This may very well indicate that the writer
was writin!( in 1959 and not in 1958.
D. V.
Nathan, who it is stated presided over the meeting,
bas not been examined. lllahntame stated that in
the Annual Report of the year I 957-58 which was
published sometime at the end of the year, 1958,
there is a reference to the meeting of April 17,
1958, but in the Tllport the meetin~ of April 5 is
mentioned, and the meeting of April 17 is not at
all mentioned. The letters of the members are
not in truth requisitions at all: they are merely
requests made by some members to tho Union to
support the cause of Salivateeswaran, and do not
request the Secretary to call a meeting. If a requisition, according to the rules was in fact received, a meeting had to be called after notice of lfi
days for that purpose.
Under cl. i( c) of the
Constitution and Rules of tho Bomba.y Union of
Journalist.a meetings of the General Body require
·°';.
•
'
--
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
905
15 days' clear notice except when a meeting has
been adjourned in which case a week's notice will
suffice. It is also provided by cl. (g) that resolutions rllgarding other business which a member may
desire to be taken up at any meeting should also be
given seven clear days before the meeting. Under
cl. 19, a notice of a General Body meeting has to
be sent to every member individually by the
Secretary in the time prescribed in cl. 7
of the
Constitution,
and by cl. 18, sub-cl. 2 (a), the
Secretary has to maintain the minutes of all meetings, conduct all correspondence, convene
all
meetings, exereise supervision over the affairs and
activities of the Union.
Of the alleged meeting
dated April 17, 1958, clear notice of 15 days was
not given. Of resolutions regarding other business
which a member may desire to be taken up at any
meeting 7 days, clear notice is required by the
rules, but it is not shown to have been given. There
is no evidence that the notice for a General Body
meeting of the time prescribed under cl. 7 was
given to the members, and the Secretary had made
a startling statement that he did not maintain any
minutes of the meeting, but had copied out the resolution on a loose sheet of paper.
The subsequent
conduct of the office bearers of the Union also
strongly supports the contention raised by counsel
for the respondents that the resolution is fabricated
at some later date. In the letter dated April 25,
1958, it was stated that the Bombay Union of
,Journalists had taken up the dispute of Salivateeswaran and called upon "The Hindu", Bombay,
to settle the dispute amicably, but there is no
reference of the resolution passed on April 17,
1958. The resolution was not mentioned even in
the statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal. 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 Disputes Act, but there was no reference to the reso1961
The Bomb'!)' Union oJ
Journalists
'"
Tht 'Hindu', Bombay
Shah].
19&1
Tiu Bombay Union •f
JovnuiJi1t.s
v.
Tiu 'Hindu•, BomHy
Sh.h ].
!l06
SUPREME COURT REPOn:.rs
[1!l6:l)
lution dated April 17, 1958.
"Tho Hindu" in
para.graph 4 of its reply h&B expressly averred that
apart from tho statement tha.t 225 members of the
Union requested its Secretary to take up the Cl\use
of Salivateeswaran, there is nothing to show th;i.t
the Union a.s such had passed any resolution or
authorised its Secrcto.ry to tako np Salivateeswanm's cause and to raise an industrial dispute
thereon. This statement of "Tho Hindu" waa
not chn,llcngerl by an affidavit in reply alleging th~i
the claim of Salivatoeswaran was supported by a
resolution of the l'nion.
When Venkateswaran
was examined on Juno 12, 1959, he was not asked
in cross.examination about the r<'solution.
Even
'rhen Si~livatceswaran was examined tho roaolution
was not produced : it was for the first time produced on July 9, 195!1.
Tho letters requesting the
Union to espouse the ca.use of Salivatecswa.ran
were written between April 9 and April 15, 1958,
and it is suggested that the matter was ta.ken up
in the meeting of April 17. If tho meeting of April
17 was an adjourned meeting (tho previous meet·
ing being of April 5) in tho agend11. there could be
no reference to the consideration of these letters
and it could not take up frO!!h ma.tters. Beyond the
bare sta.temont of llfahatamc supported by the
intereBb·d testimony of Salivatecswaran there ia no
roliable evidence that in the meeting of the 17th
the Secretary moved the resolution about Salivateuswnran 11.ncl it was adopted without opposition tho documentary evidence which
should
normally have been in existence if
the
case
that the
Union passed
a resolution on April
17, l!l58, was true, has not been produced
on
the pica either that it was not maintained or
tha.t it was destroyed.
Even on the case of the
appellants, there is nothing to show that notice of
the meeting dat.ed April 17 convened for the purpose of considering tho requisition wll.B ever given
to Venkat.eswaran and if it wa.s not given, by the
mere passing of a resolution by other mombera of
the Union the oa1e of the appellant. that the claim
'
'
(
--
.,
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
907
of Salivateeswaran was supported by Venkateswaran cannot be supported.
The Tribunal observed that if even after tho
reference Venkateswaran and
Tiwari ceased to
support the cause of Salivateeswaran, being the
only person who could support the cause, the refer.
cnce must fail, and in support of that view relied
upon the judgment of a Single Judgo of the Madras
High Court in The Hindu v.
The Working Journalists of the Hindu in ~Madras (1 ), but this decision
ha..~ since been overruled by a Division Bench of
the Madras High Court in the Working Jouroolists
o.f the Hindu v. 'l'he Hindu ('). In that case the
Court observed : "It must be held that the jurisdic·
tion of the labour court to proceed with the matter
wholly depends on whether the industrial dispute
referred to it for adjudication existed or was apprehended on the date of the reference and not on
any subsequent date. Having regard to the relevant statutory provisions it must be held that the
jurisdiction of the labour court to proceed with and
adjudicate upon an industrial dispute stems from
and is sustained, until it makes an award and the
same becomes enforeea.ble, by the reference itself
which has been made on the basis of an industrial
dispute existing or apprehended on the date of the
reference and that the juri.sdiction of the labour
court to proceed in the matter is not in any way
affected by the fact that subsequent to the date of
the reference, the workers or a substantial section of
them who had originally sponsored the cause, had
la.tor resiled and withdrawn from it." In our view,
these observations correctly set out the effect of a
subsequent withdrawal of support by the workmen
of a cause previously espoused by them. In each
case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute
has acquired the character of an industrial dispute
the test is whether at the date of the reference the
dispute was taken up as supported by the Union of
the workmen of the employer against whom the
. (I) [1959) II L. L. J. 318.
(2) [1961] I L. L. J. 288.
1961
rrhe Bombay Uniet' •f
Journalists
..
The •Hindu'. Bomb•y
1961
Tlte Bomhay Unioo of
Jotatld/i.sts
v.
Tltt
4Hi1URI, Bombay
ShaA J.
t
908
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
[1962)
dispute is raised by an individual workman or by
an appreciable number of workmen. If Venkateswaran or Tiwari had prior to the date of the reference supported the cause of Sa.Ji,•atccswaran, by
their subsequent affidavits tho rcfor~nce C'Ould not
have been invalidated. But as we have already
observed there was, in fact, no support to tho cause
of Salivateoswaran by Venkat~swarau or by Tiwari
awl therefore the dispute continued tu remain an
individual diapute.
The effect of the Mupport to the cause of Salivn.tceswaran by tho Indian Federation of Working
J ournnlists and the claim founded thereon does
nut call fur any detailed consideration. After the
roforonce was s~bmitted and it was pending hearing
before t.hu Tribunal a lett<ir w:i.s written bv the
President of the Indian Federati"n of Working
,Journalists to the General Secretary of tho Bombay
Guion of Journalists on April 16, 195fJ, stating that
the Federation had lent support to Saliva.tceswaran
in the writ petition fik'<I by "Tho Hindu" in the
~uprome Court and thnt the Federation did so as
it was a test case.
Another letwr dat"d Apnl 17,
1959, was address~d by the General Recretary of
the Indian Fedomtion of Working Journalists to
the General Secretary, Bomb&y Union of Journalist&
Bombay, stating that thoy had advised Salivateeswnran to filo a petition before the Presiding Officer
of the Industrial Court in Bombay and had also
intervened in the Supreme Court, and further that
tho Federation fully supported all actions taken by
the Bombay Union of ,Journalists to get justice for
Sali vateeswaran, The Secretary of the Union by
letter dated July 9, 1959, wrote to the President
and Secretary-General of tho Indian Feder&tion
of W(Jrking Journalists that Salivatceswaran's case
was being hoard for a week and that Salivatceswaran
was to undergo cross-examination on the next day
and that Mahatamo, tho previous Secretary was to
give evidence. He further stated '"I am of opinion
that we must produce somo document whereby it
-
.,.
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
909
will be possible to prove that the Federation had
supported Salivateeswa.ran's 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 WHS none such on the record, to pass &
fresh resolution supporting the Bombay Union's
action regarding Salivateeswaran's 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 copy of the resolution alleged to
have'been adopted by the members of the Working
Committee of the Indian Federation of Working
Journalists regarding Salivateeswaran's case.
The
draft resolution sought to support the oase of the
Bombay Union of Journalists before the Industrial
Tribunal, Bombay, and to "direct the Union to fight
the case with all its strength". This resolution is
alleged to have been passed by circulation after
the commencement of the adjudication proceedings.
If the dispute was in its inception an individual
dispute and continued to be such till the date of
the reference by the Government of Bombay, it
could not be converted into an indmtrial dispute by
support subsequent to the reference even of workmen interested in the dispute. We have already
held that subsequent withdrawal of support will not
take away the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal.
On the same reasoning subsequent support will not
convert what was an individual dispute at the time
of reference into an industrial dispute. The resolution of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists, assuming that it has any value, would not be
sufficient to convert what was an individual dispute
into an industrial dispute.
On the view taken by us this appeal must fail
and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal di~mi1sed.
1961
Thi Bombay Union 1f
Journalists
v.
The 'Hindu', Bomb.sy
Shah].