# SUPREME COURT REPORT8 THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 279
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1956
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, B. Gajen~Ragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-report8-the-manager-hotel-imperial-v-the-chief-commissioner-and-1755
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

279
Industrial Dispute-Order of reference-Workmen shown as
represented by Union-Whether formally defective-Workmen, "!'hen
must be individually mentioned-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4
of Ig47), SS. 2(k), IO and 36.
An industrial dispute between the hotel and its workmen
was referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The attack of the hotel
was on the form of the order o( reference, the main contention
being that the reference was incompetent on the grounds that the
Union could not be made a party to the reference under the
Industrial Disputes Act, and that the reference was vague, as it
did not indicate how many of the workers of different categories
working in the hotel were involved in the dispute.
Held, that the order of reference was perfectly competent
when the parties to it and the nature of the dispute were clearly
specified. The reference which was otherwise valid does not
become incompetent simply because it was mentioned therein
that the workmen will be represented by such and such Union in
the dispute. The addition of the name of the Union was merely
for the sake of convenience so· that the Tribunal may know to
whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the
reference; that does not preclude the workmen from being
represented by another Union or even being made parties
individually. It is unnecessary for the purpose of s. 10 of the
Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the
terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of workmen to mention 1.he names of particular workmen who might
have been responsible for the dispute. It was only where a
dispute refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as
represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention
the names of the workmen concerned.
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 291 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1955, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High
Court at Delhi, in Civil Writ Application No. 189-D
of 1955.
r959
May IJ.
r959
The MaMger,
Hotel Imperial
v.
The Chief
Commissioner
and Ollsers
Wamhoo J.
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
Jai Gopal Sethi, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1.
G. S. Pathak, V. P. Nayar and Janar!lan Sharma,
for respondent No. 3. ·
1959. May 13. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANCHOO J.-This appeal comes before us on a
certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under
Art. 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution.
The
appellant is the manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi
(hereinafter called the hotel) while the respondents are
the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
The
main contesting respondent is respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called the union). A dispute arose betweenthe
hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was referred to an Industrial Tribunal on October 12, 1955, by
the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The portion of the
order of reference, relevant for our purposes, is in
these terms-
" Whereas from a report submitted by the Director
of Industries and Labour, Delhi under s. 12 (4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended, it appears
that an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its workmen as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi;
"AND whereas on a consideration of the said
report the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, is satisfied
that the said dispute should be referred to a
tribunal ; "
Then follows the order referring the dispute to the
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi including the
terms of reference. Soon after the hotel filed a writ
application in the Punjab High Court challenging the
order of reference on a variety of grounds. The writ
application was heard by the

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT8
THE MANAGER, HOTEL IMPERIAL
v.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, ·p, B. GAJEN~RAGADKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
279
Industrial Dispute-Order of reference-Workmen shown as
represented by Union-Whether formally defective-Workmen, "!'hen
must be individually mentioned-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4
of Ig47), SS. 2(k), IO and 36.
An industrial dispute between the hotel and its workmen
was referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The attack of the hotel
was on the form of the order o( reference, the main contention
being that the reference was incompetent on the grounds that the
Union could not be made a party to the reference under the
Industrial Disputes Act, and that the reference was vague, as it
did not indicate how many of the workers of different categories
working in the hotel were involved in the dispute.
Held, that the order of reference was perfectly competent
when the parties to it and the nature of the dispute were clearly
specified. The reference which was otherwise valid does not
become incompetent simply because it was mentioned therein
that the workmen will be represented by such and such Union in
the dispute. The addition of the name of the Union was merely
for the sake of convenience so· that the Tribunal may know to
whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the
reference; that does not preclude the workmen from being
represented by another Union or even being made parties
individually. It is unnecessary for the purpose of s. 10 of the
Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the
terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of workmen to mention 1.he names of particular workmen who might
have been responsible for the dispute. It was only where a
dispute refers to the dismissal etc., of particular workmen as
represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention
the names of the workmen concerned.
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 291 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1955, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High
Court at Delhi, in Civil Writ Application No. 189-D
of 1955.
r959
May IJ.
r959
The MaMger,
Hotel Imperial
v.
The Chief
Commissioner
and Ollsers
Wamhoo J.
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
Jai Gopal Sethi, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1.
G. S. Pathak, V. P. Nayar and Janar!lan Sharma,
for respondent No. 3. ·
1959. May 13. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANCHOO J.-This appeal comes before us on a
certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under
Art. 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution.
The
appellant is the manager, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi
(hereinafter called the hotel) while the respondents are
the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
The
main contesting respondent is respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called the union). A dispute arose betweenthe
hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was referred to an Industrial Tribunal on October 12, 1955, by
the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The portion of the
order of reference, relevant for our purposes, is in
these terms-
" Whereas from a report submitted by the Director
of Industries and Labour, Delhi under s. 12 (4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended, it appears
that an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its workmen as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi;
"AND whereas on a consideration of the said
report the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, is satisfied
that the said dispute should be referred to a
tribunal ; "
Then follows the order referring the dispute to the
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi including the
terms of reference. Soon after the hotel filed a writ
application in the Punjab High Court challenging the
order of reference on a variety of grounds. The writ
application was heard by the High Court and dismissed on ~ovember 25, 1955. The hotel then applied for
leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted on
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
281
January 13, 1956. The hotel obtained stay of the
I959
Proceedings before the Additional Industrial Tribunal
The Manager,
from this Court on February 27, 1956. That is how
Hotel Imperial
this dispute which would have been otherwise decided
v.
long ago is still in its initial stage.
The Chief CommisThe main contention on behalf of the hotel is that sioner and Others
the reference is incompetent and two grounds have
Wanchoo 1 ..
been urged in support of it; namely, (1) the union
could not be made a party to the reference under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the
Act); and (2) the reference was vague, as it did not
indicate how many of the 480 workers of thirty
different categories working in the hotel were involved
in the dispute. We are of opinion that there is no
force in these grounds of attack. An " industrial dispute " for our purposes has been defined in s. 2 (k) of
the Act as meaning " any dispute or difference between
employers and workmen ....... which is connected
with the employment or non-employment or the terms
of employment or with the conditions oflabour, of any
person." Section 10 ( l) of the Act gives power to the
appropriate government where it is of opinion that an
industrial dispute exists or is apprehended to refer
the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication. It cannot
be denied on the facts of this case that there was a
dispute between the hotel and its workmen and it went
to this length that the hotel decided to dismiss a large
number of workmen on October 7, 1955. It is also
undoubted that the dispute was with respect to the
terms of employment or conditions of labour of the
workmen. The Chief Commissioner would therefore
have power under s. 10 (1) of the Act to make a
reference of the dispute to a tribunal for a~judication.
The attack of the hotel is on the form in which the
reference was made and the contention is that the
reference in this form is incompetent. We have already
set out the relevant part of the order of reference
giving the form in which it was niade. The two
parties to the dispute are clearly indicateq, namely,
(1) the employer which is the management of the hotel·
and (2) the workmen emplciyed in the hotel. The
objection, however, is that the words "as represented
36
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
z959
·by ·the Hotel Workers' Union, Katra Shahanshahi,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi" which appear in the order of
The Manager,
,
Hotel Imperial reference make it mcompetent, inasmuch as the union
v.
could not be made a party to the reference.
We are
The Chief Commis- of opinion that this objection is a mere technicality,
sioner and Others which does not affect the competence of the order of
reference. The fact remains that the dispute which was
Wancl'f'o ].
£
d'
b
h
referred or adju ication was etween t e employer,
namely the management of the hotel, and its employees,
which were mentioned as its workmen. The addition of
the words "as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi " was
merely for the sake of convenience so that the tribunal
may know to whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the reference. That however did
not preclude the workmen, if they wanted to be
represented by any other union, to apply to the tribunal for such representation or even to apply for being
made parties individually. Section 36 of the Act
provides that a workman who is party to a dispute
shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding
under the Act by (a) an officer of a trade union of
which he is a member, or (b) an officer of a federation
of trade unions to which the trade union of which he
is a member is affiliated; or (c) where the workmen is
not a member of any trade union, by an officer of any
trade union connected with, or by any other workman
employed in, the industry in which the workman is
employed. The fact therefore that in the order of
reference the quoted words were added for the sake of
convenience as to where the notice to the workmen
should be sent would not in our opinion make the
reference incompetent. The objection further is that
even if the workman is entitled to be represented by an
officer of a trade union of which he is a member, the
reference in this case does not mention any officer of
the trade union, but mentions the union itself. This in
our opinion is a technicality upon technicality, for the
union not being a living person can only be served
·through some officer, such as its president or secretary
and it is that officer who will really represent the
workmen before the tribunaL We are therefore of
S .C.R.
SUPREME COtJR'l" REPORTS
283
opm1on that the reference which is otherwise valid
r959
does not become incompetent simply because it is
The Manager,
mentioned therein that the workmen will be representHotel Imperial
ed by such and such union in the dispute. We may in
v.
this connection point out that the large majority ofT~e Chief Commisreferences under the 'Act which we have come across sionerand Others
are usually in this form and the reason for it is
Wanchoo 1.
obvious, namely, the convenience of informing the
tribunal to whom it should send a notice on behalf of
the workmen, whose number is generally very large.
We therefore reject the contention that the reference
is bad simply because in the order of reference the
words" as represented by the Hotel Workers' Union,
Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi" have
been added.
Equally, we see no force in the other ground of
attack, namely, that the reference is bad because it
does not specify how many of the 480 workmen of
thirty different categories were involved in the dispute.
It is in our opinion unnecessary for the purposes of
s. 10 where the dispute is of a general nature relating
to the terms of employment or conditions of labour of
a body of workmen, to mention the names of particuiar
workmen who might have been responsible for the
dispu~e. It is only where a dispute refers to the
dismissal etc., of particular workmen as represented by
the union that it may be desirable to mention the
names of the workmen concerned. In this case, the
dispute was also about workmen to whom notice of
dismissal had been given and in that connection the
names of the workmen concerned were mentioned in
in the order of reference. We may in this. connection
refer to State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy (1), where a
similar attack on the competence of a reference was
made on the ground of vagueness. In that case the
reference was in these terms :
" WHEREAS an industrial dispute has arisen
between the workers and managements of the cinema
talkies in the Madras City in respect of certain
matters;
(I) [1953] S.C.R. 334·
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
z959
"AND WHEREAS in the opinion of His Excellency the Governor of Madras, it is necessary to
The Manager,
£
ad
'
Hotel Imperial
re er the said industrial dispute for
judicat10n; "
v.
Thereafter followed the order 9f reference, which did
The Chief CO..mis- not even contain the terms of reference. The order
sioner •~d Others however indicated that "the Industrial Tribunal may,
wanehoq 1.
in its discretion, settle the- issues in the light of a preliminary enqμiry which it may hold for the ·purpose and
thereafter adjudicate on the said industrial dispute."
The Commissioner of Labour was requested to send
copies of the order to the managements of cinema
talkies concerned. It was held there that "the reference to the Tribunal under s. 10 {l) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be held to be invalid merely
because it did not specify the disputes or the parties
between whom the disputes arose "
It was further
held that "the Government must, of course, have
sufficient knowledge of the nature of the dispute to be
satisfied that it is an industrial dispute within the
meaning of the Act, as, for instance, that it relates to
retrenchment or reinstatement. But, beyond this no
obligation can be held to lie on the Government to
aB'Certain particulars of the disputes before making a
reference under s. 10(1) or to specify them in the
order."
. The present reference as compared to the reference
in that case cannot be called vague at all. Here the
parties to the dispute are clearly specified, namely,
(i) the management of the hotel, and (ii) its workmen.
The nature of the dispute is also specified in the terms
of reference. It was in our opinion entirely unnecessary to mention in the order of reference as to who
were the workmen who· were responsible for the
dispute. We are therefore of opinion that this attack
on the ground. of vagueness also fails. There is no force
in t.his appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs to
respondent No. 3. In view of the fact that more than
three years have passed since the reference was made,
we trust that the Additional Industrial Tribunal will
now dispose of the matter as expeditiously as it can.
Appe.al dismissed.