WORKMEN OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE V. MANAGEMENT OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE, AIR 1958 SC 353
FACTS
- The appellants before us are the workmen of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate represented by the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Dibrugarh. The respondent is the management of the Dimakuchi tea estate, District Darrang in Assam.
- One Dr K.P. Banerjee was appointed Assistant Medical Officer of the Dimakuchi tea estate with effect from November 1, 1950. He was appointed subject to a satisfactory medical report and on probation for three months.
- On April 21, Dr Banerjee received a letter from one Mr Booth, Manager of the tea estate, in which it was stated: “It has been found necessary to terminate your services with effect from the 22nd instant.”
- The Manager stated “...main reason is because of the deceitful manner in which you added figures to the requirements of the last medical indent after it had been signed by Dr Cox, evidence of which is in my hands.”
- The Governor of Assam was pleased to refer the dispute to Shri U.K. Gohain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. The dispute which was thus referred to the Tribunal was described in these terms:
- “ Whether the management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate was justified in dismissing Dr K.P. Banerjee, A.M.O?
- If not, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?”
ISSUE
- The question is whether a dispute in relation to a person who is not a workman within the meaning of the Act still falls within the scope of the definition clause in Section 2(k)?
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
- Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the expression “of any person” occurring in the third part of the definition clause is an expression of very wide import and there are no reasons why the words “any person” should be equated with “any workman”, as the tribunals below have done.
- The argument is that inasmuch as the dispute or difference between the employer and the workmen is connected with the non-employment of a person called Dr K.P. Banerjee (even though he was not a workman), the dispute is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the definition clause.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
- The management contended that the strike called by the workmen was illegal and unauthorized, as it did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- The management asserted that it had acted in accordance with the provisions of the law and the terms of employment contracts in dismissing the workmen for participating in an illegal strike.
RATIONALE
- The question is whether a dispute in relation to a person who is not a workman within the meaning of the Act still falls within the scope of the definition clause in Section 2(k). If we analyze the definition clause it falls easily and naturally into three parts: first, there must be a dispute or difference; second, the dispute or difference must be between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen; third, the dispute or difference must be connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.
- The expression “any person” occurring in the third part of the definition clause cannot mean anybody and everybody in this wide world. First of all, the subject-matter of dispute must relate to
- (i) employment or unemployment or
- (ii) terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person; these necessarily import a limitation in the sense that a person in respect of whom the employer employee relation never existed or can never possibly exist cannot be the subject-matter of a dispute between employers and workmen.
- Thus, an examination of the salient provisions of the Act shows that the principal objects of the Act are -
- the promotion of measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen;
- an investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, between employers and employers, employers and workmen, or workmen and workmen, with a right of representation by a registered trade union or federation of trade unions or association of employers or a federation of associations of employers;
- prevention of illegal strikes and lock-outs;
- relief to workmen in the matter of lay-off and retrenchment; and
- collective bargaining.
- The Act is primarily meant for regulating the relations of employers and workmen — past, present and future. It draws a distinction between “workmen” as such and the managerial or supervisory staff, and confers benefit on the former only.
HELD
- In the case Dr K.P. Banerjee was not a “workman”. He belonged to the medical or technical staff - a different category altogether from workmen. The appellants had no direct, nor substantial interest in his employment or non-employment, and even assuming that he was a member of the same Trade Union, it cannot be said, on the tests laid down by us, that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act.
- The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed.