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.) 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 work- men 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 Novem- ber 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. 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 Indus- trial Tribunal, Delhi, and the Hotel Workers' Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
The main contesting respondent is respondent No. 3 (here- inafter called the union). A dispute arose betweenthe hotel and its workmen in October 1955. It was refer- red 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 manage- ment of the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and its work- men 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 dismis- sed on ~ovember 25, 1955. The hotel then applied for leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted on
S.C.R. 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 Commis- The 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 dis-
pute " 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 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 pro- ceeding 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 tribu- nal 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
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 represent- Hotel 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 Commis- references 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· z959 "AND WHEREAS in the opinion of His Ex-
cellency 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 preli- minary 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 refer-
ence 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 unneces- sary 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.