JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. This is one of those cases where due to hypertechnical objections
having been raised by the management the progress of adjudication on an industrial dispute having been referred 15 years ago has been thwarted. It is indeed unfortunate that the workman has not had the satisfaction of seeing the terms of-reference being answered within a reasonable time due to no fault of his.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot was employed as a Traffic Assistant by the petitioner-company. With effect from March 17, 1972, his services were terminated.
3. On 23rd March, 1972, Shri R.M.Roy, President of the Mercantile Employees’ Association wrote to the petitioner-company protesting against the aforesaid termination. In this letter, it was stated that the services of Shri Bhanot have been terminated because he had been demanding bonus and insurance. Notice was served requiring the petitioner to reinstate the workman and also to pay him bonus of Rs. 2,516 and increments for the year 1971 and 1972.
4. The petitioner sent a reply, dated 29th March, 1972, contending that the action taken by it was in accordance with law and rules. It was stated in the said letter that the workman was not entitled to be reinstated. It was further mentioned that all the amounts due to him had been paid and Shri Roy was asked to intimate the workman concerned that he had no claim and/or other dues against the petitioner. Lastly, it was mentioned that the President of the Union had no locus standi to represent and raise the due claims of the said employee.
5. It appears that thereafter conciliation proceeding took place and after the report of the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had been received, the Delhi Administration, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the said Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court:-
“Whether termination of service of Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect”.
6. Thereafter, proceedings took place before Labour Court. In its written statenjent, one of the objections raised by the petitioner was that the Mercantile Employees’ Association had no locus standi to represent the workman and, further, that no demand notice as required by law had been served on the petitioner. The Additional Labour Tribunal framed a preliminary issue “as to whether the Mercantile Employees’ Association had locus standi in the matter”. Thereafter, an order, dated 21st February, , 1974, was passed deciding the said issue in favor of the workman.
7. As is normally the case, the management filed a writ petition being Civil Writ No. 440 of 1974 in this Court. By order, dated 6th June, 1974, this writ petition was disposed of and the Industrial Tribunal was required to adjudicate on two preliminary issues which were framed by the Court. They were:-
1. Whether a valid demand had been made by the workman Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot against the management?
2. Whether the Mercantile Employees’ Association had locus standi to espouse or raise an industrial dispute on behalf of the workman of the management or on behalf of Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot ?”
8. The Labour Court, which was seized of the matter, then recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that the workmen of the management had not espoused the present dispute. Nevertheless, it held that there was a dispute between the management on the one side and its workman, Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot, on the other. It was stated that there was an individual dispute and it became an industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by virtue of the provisions of Section 2A of the said Act notwithstanding the fact that it had not been validly espoused. On the first question, the Labour Court found PS a fact that Shri R.N Roy had been duly authorised by Shri Bhanot to make a demand on his behalf. It was also noted by the Labour Tribunal that in the petitioner’s written statement before the Conciliation Officer, the notice, dated 23rd March, 1972, in which the demand was raised, was described by the petitioner-management as being a notice served on it by Shri Bhanot.
9. The Labour Court, therefore, decided both the preliminary issues in favor of the petitioner.
10. Once again, there being to dearth of will and desire to litigate, the management had filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision of the Labour Court on the preliminary issues.
11. Before going into the merits of the case, one must bear in mind that in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been stated in no un-clear terms that interference with the progress of the determination of industrial disputes on merits before its completion is not desirable. It is indeed unfortunate that the reference which was made by the Delhi Administration by its order, dated 22nd October, 1972, has remained grounded. The question of the validity of termination of services of Shri Bhanot has not yet been decided.
12. Coming to the merits of the case, Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that in view of the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the second preliminary issue which had been framed no longer survived. Even if there was no valid espousal of the dispute by the workman or by the association, an individual dispute is deemed to be an industrial dispute.
13. Mr. Kumar, however, vehemently contended that in order that there should be an industrial dispute, it was necessary that there has to be a valid demand. The contention of the learned counsel is that at the time when the letter, dated 23rd March, 1972, was written, the Mercantile Employees’ Association, which is outside union, had not espoused the demand of the workman. It is further contended that the letter, dated 23rd March, 1972, is not under the signature of the workman and, therefore, the said letter of demand cannot be recorded as being a demand raised by the workman himself. To my mind, the arguments of the learned counsel amount to splitting hairs. The Labour Court has taken into consideration and has accepted the letter of authority which was placed before it showing that the workman had authorised Shri R.N. Roy to make a demand on the management on his behalf (it will indeed be a travesty of justice, equity and fair play, if the workman is not permitted to request any other individual to make a demand on his behalf. It is not unknown that a large number of members of the labour force are illiterate. For espousing their cause, they have to go and take the advice of labour and other leaders and friends. It will be negating the rights which have been conferred on labour if for such technical reasons, the workmen are to be non-suited). Even though the Mercantile Employees’ Association may not have espoused the cause of the workman, nevertheless, there is nothing in law which prohibited the workman concerned from authorising and requesting Shri. R. N. Roy, President of the said Association, to make a demand on the management. It is pursuant to this authority having been given that the letter of demand, dated 23rd March, 1972, was written. A letter of demand written by a person authorised to do so has to be regarded as a demand raised by the workman himself. To my mind, there cannot be any two views about it. In fact, the management itself recorded this demand as being raised by the workman because, as observed by the Labour Court, in the written statement filed by the management before the Conciliation Officer, this letter, dated 23rd March, 1972, has been regarded as being a demand raised by the workman, Shri Bhanot. The Labour Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that there was a valid demand which had been made by the workman against the management.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, both the preliminary issues which had been framed were rightly decided by the Labour Court in favor of the workman.
15. No other contention has been raised before me. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000. The case is remanded to the Labour Court dealing with this case, with a direction that as the reference was made in the year 1972, the reference should, if possible, be disposed of within a period of six months from today.