{"id":152205,"date":"1957-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957"},"modified":"2016-10-06T17:51:14","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T12:21:14","slug":"the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","title":{"rendered":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 532, \t\t 1957 SCR 754<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE NEWSPAPERS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/03\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  532\t\t  1957 SCR  754\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Dispute, Meaning of-Dispute between\temployer and\na  single  workman -  Whether  industrial  dipute-Government\nmaking\treference  on the assumption that a  dispute  exists\nbetween\t the, employer and his workmen-Whether\tvalidity  of\nthe reference can be questioned -U . P. Industrial  Disputes\nAct,  1947  (U.P.  XXVIII  of  1947),  SS.  2,\t3-Industrial\nDisputes Act, 1947 (XIV Of 1947), S. 2 (k).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA dispute between an employer and a single workman does\t not\nfall  within the definition of \" industrial dispute \"  under\nthe  U.P.  industrial Disputes Act, 1947.   But\t though\t the\napplicability of the Act to an individual dispute as opposed\nto  a dispute involving a group of workmen is  excluded,  if\nthe  workmen  as a body or a consicrerable section  of\tthem\nmake  common cause with the individual workman then  such  a\ndispute would be an industrial dispute.\n755\nCentral\t Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v Raghunath  Gopal\nPatwardhan,  (1956) S. C. R. 956 and D. N. Banerji v. P.  R.\nMukherjee,<\/a> (1953) S.C.R. 302, referred to.\nSwadeshi  Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen,<\/a>  (1953)  I\nL.L.J. 757, in so far as it decided that a dispute raised by\nan,  individual\t workman is within  an\tindustrial  dispute,\ndisapproved.\nCase-law reviewed.\nThe  third respondent was employed as a lino typist  by\t the\nappellant company but on allegations of incompetence he\t was\ndismissed  from service.  His case was not taken up  by\t any\nunion of workers of the appellant company nor by any of\t the\nunions of workmen employed in similar or-allied trades,\t but\nthe U.P. Working journalists Union, Lucknow, with which\t the\nthird  respondent had no connection took the matter  to\t the\nConciliation   Board,  Allahabad,  and\t-   ultimately\t the\nGovernment made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal by  a\nnotification  in which one of the points  for  determination\nreferred  was  as  to- whether the  services  of  the  third\nrespondent  were  wrongfully terminated by  the\t management.\nThe  legality  of  the\treference  was\tchallenged  by\t the\nappellant  and\tthe  question was raised  as  to  whether  a\ndispute\t between  an  employer and a  single  workman  falls\nwithin the definition of \"industrial dispute\" under the U.P.\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\nHeld, that the reference was bad because the dispute was not\nbetween the employer on the one hand and his workmen on\t the\nother,\tnor  could  the U.P. Working  journalists  Union  be\ncalled\t\"  his workmen \", within the meaning of\t the  U.  P.\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\nThough the making of a reference by the Government under the\nAct  is\t the  exercise\tof  its\t administrative\t powers,  an\naggrieved  party  can  question\t the  jurisdiction  of\t the\nIndustrial  Tribunal to show that what was referred was\t not\nan industrial dispute.\nState  of  Madras  v.  C. P.  Sarathy,<\/a>\t(1953)\tS.C.R.\t334,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1956.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated Septem.  ber\t 22,
\n1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 8 of
\n1954 arising out of the judgment and decree dated January 6,
\n1954  of  the said High Court in  Civil\t Miscellaneous\tWrit
\nPetition No. 651 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
S.   P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
\nG.   G. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
756<\/span><\/p>\n
1957.  March 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKAPUR J.-The ground on which the appellant company seeks  to
\nhave the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is\tthat
\nno  industrial\t‘dispute existed within the meaning  of\t the
\nexpression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
\n(XXVIII\t of  1947)  (hereinafter called the  U.P.  Act)\t and
\nconsequently  the U.P. Government had no power to  make\t the
\nreference in question.\tI Industrial Dispute’ is defined  in
\ns. 2 of the U.P. Act as having the same meaning assigned  to
\nit  as in s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,\t1947  (here-
\ninafter termed the Central Act).  There this expression\t has
\nbeen defined in s. 2 (k) to mean :\n<\/p>\n
” any dispute or difference between employers and employers,
\nor  between  employers and workmen, or between\tworkmen\t and
\nworkmen,  which\t is connected with the\temployment  or\tnon-
\nemployment or the terms of employment or with the conditions
\nof labour, of any person.  ”\n<\/p>\n
The  controversy between the parties arose in the  following
\ncircumstances:\n<\/p>\n
Tajammul  Hussain, respondent No. 3 was employed as  a\tlino
\ntypist by the appellant company.  He was dismissed on May 8,
\n1952,  on, allegations of incompetence under r. 12  (ii)  of
\nthe  Standing  Orders  of the  appellant  company.   It\t was
\nalleged that the dismissal of Respondent No. 3 was  welcomed
\nby  his\t co-workers and other workmen in the employ  of\t the
\nappellant company and they made no grievance of it, nor\t did
\nthey espouse his cause.\n<\/p>\n
The  case of respondent No. 3 was not taken up by any  union
\nof workers of the appellant company nor by any of the unions
\nof  workmen  employed in similar or allied trades,  but\t the
\nU.P.   Working\tJournalists  Union,  Lucknow,\twith   which
\nrespondent  No.\t 3 had no connection  whatsoever,  took\t the
\nmatter\tto the Conciliation Board,  Allahabad.\t Ultimately,
\nthe  U.P.  Government  made a reference\t to  the  Industrial
\nTribunal  on  June 3, 1953, by notification;  the  prefatory
\nwords of which are:\n<\/p>\n
757<\/span><\/p>\n
”  Whereas an industrial dispute in respect of\tthe  matters
\nhereinafter  specified exists between the concern  known  as
\nNewspapers  Ltd., Allahabad and its workmen; and whereas  in
\nthe opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the
\nmaintenance   of   public  order  and  I   for\t maintaining
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
One of the questions referred was:-\n<\/p>\n
“‘  Whether  the  services  of\tSri  Tajammul  Hussain\tLino
\nOperator were wrongfully terminated by the Management
\nOn  February  13,  1953, the State  Industrial\tTribunal  at
\nAllahabad decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and  ordered
\nhis reinstatement ” without break of continuity of service ”
\nand  also  ordered the payment of his wages for\t the  period
\nduring\twhich he “remained dismissed”.\tAn appeal was  taken
\nby  the appellant company to the Labour Appellate  Tribunal,
\nwho  by\t its ,order dated February 24,\t1953,  affirmed\t the
\norder  of  the Tribunal with costs.  The  appellant  company
\nthen moved a petition in the Allahabad High Court under Art.
\n226  of the Constitution but this was dismissed by  Bhargava
\nJ.  on\tJanuary 6, 1954, and a Special appeal  against\tthis
\njudgment was also dismissed.  The appellant company has come
\nup  in appeal with a certificate under Art. 133 (1)  (c)  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  controversy  which\t arises in this case  is  whether  a
\ndispute\t between  an  employer and a  single  workman  falls
\nwithin\tthe definition of I industrial dispute’ as  used  in
\nthe  U.P. Act.\tIn order to resolve this controversy, it  is
\nnecessary  to  refer to the scheme of the U.P. Act  and\t the
\nrelevant  rules\t made thereunder.  The preamble of  the\t Act
\nruns: ”\t to provide for powers to prevent strikes and  look-
\nouts,  and  for the settlement of  industrial  disputes\t and
\nother  incidental  matters “. Section 3 of the\tAct  confers
\ncertain\t powers on the State Government for the\t purpose  of
\nprevention of strikes, lock-outs, etc.- The portion of\tthis
\nsection\t relevant  for the purpose of this appeal  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
If  in the opinion of the State Government, it is  necessary
\nor  expedient  so to do for securing the  public  safety  or
\nconvenience, or the maintenance of public
\n758<\/span>
\norder or supplies and services essential to the life of\t the
\ncommunity, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general
\nor special order, make provision-\n<\/p>\n
(c)  for appointing industrial courts;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  for  referring any industrial dispute for\tconciliation
\nor adjudication in the manner provided in the order\n<\/p>\n
(g)  for  any  incidental or  supplementary  matters,  which
\nappear\tto the State Government necessary or  expedient\t for
\nthe purpose of the order; ”\n<\/p>\n
Under s. 23 of the Act, the State Government can make  rules
\nconsistent with the Act for giving effect to the  provisions
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Under  clauses (b), (c), (d) and (g) of s. 3 and under s.  8
\nof  the\t U.P. Act, rules governing Conciliation\t Boards\t and
\nIndustrial   Tribunals\t in   U.P.   were   promulgated\t  by
\nNotification No. 615 (LL) XVIII-7 (LL)-1951, dated  Lucknow,
\nMarch 15, 1951.\t Rule 4 deals with the reference of disputes
\nto Conciliation Boards.\t The relevant portions of this\trule
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
,,Any workman or an employer or a registered association  or
\ntrade  union  of  employers or\tregistered  trade  union  of
\nworkmen\t or  any federation of such  associations  or  trade
\nunions or where no registered trade union of workmen  exists
\nin  any particular concern or industry, the  representatives
\nnot more than 5 in number of the workmen in that concern  or
\nthe  industry, duly elected in this behalf by a majority  of
\nthe  workmen  employed in that concern or industry,  as\t the
\ncase  may  be,\tat a meeting held for the  purpose,  may  by
\napplication  in writing move a Conciliation Officer  of\t the
\narea   for   settlement\t of  any   industrial\tdispute\t  by
\nconciliation.\tThe  application  shall\t clearly  state\t the
\nindustrial dispute or disputes.\t ”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 5 deals with proceedings and the power of inclusion  of
\nother undertakings.  The proviso to this
\nrule is:\n<\/p>\n
”  Provided  that if the Board of its own motion  or  on  an
\napplication made to it, is of the opinion that any  question
\ninvolved in any such dispute or matter affects or is  likely
\nto  affect  more  than one workman in the  same\t concern  or
\nindustry or business or more
\n759<\/span>
\nthan   one  concern  in\t the  same  industry  or   business,
\nconstituted  within  the jurisdiction  of  the\tConciliation
\nBoard, it shall include in its proceedings relating to\tsuch
\ndispute\t or  order every such workman or  concern  or  where
\nthere is a registered trade union covering the, majority  of
\nsuch concerns of workmen, such trade unions.”
\nRules  7  to 11-A deal with Industrial Tribunals.   Rule  10
\ngives  power  to the Government to make a reference  of\t any
\ndispute to the Industrial Tribunal either on its own  motion
\nor  after considering the Report of the\t Conciliation  Board
\nmade under r. 6.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 15(1) which deals with the representation of parties to
\nthe dispute provides:\n<\/p>\n
” The parties may in their discretion be represented  before
\na Board or Tribunal or an Adjudicator-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  In the case of a workman by-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  an officer of a registered trade union of which
\nhe is a member;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the
\ntrade union referred to in sub-clause (a) is affiliated ;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  Where  the\t workman is not a member of  any  registered
\ntrade  union,  by an officer of any registered\ttrade  union
\nconnected with, or by any other workman employed in the same
\nindustry  or  business, if so authorised in writing  by\t the
\nworkman.”\n<\/p>\n
The  language of section 36(1) of the Central Act is  almost
\nidentical.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  27  prohibits strikes and look-outs; and r.  28  gives
\nfinality and conclusiveness to the orders made or directions
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
The  use  of  the  word\t ‘workmen’  in\tthe  plural  in\t the
\ndefinition of industrial dispute’ does not by itself exclude
\nthe  applicability  of\tthe Act\t to  an\t individual  dispute
\nbecause under a. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act
\nsubject………….\n<\/p>\n
(2)  words in the singular shall include the plural and vice
\nversa,”\n<\/p>\n
760<\/span><\/p>\n
But in order to get its true import it is necessary to\tview
\nthe  enactment in retrospect, the reasons-for  enacting\t it,
\nthe evils it was to end and the objects it was to  subserve.
\nThe  Act  has therefore to be viewed as a      whole and its
\nintention determined by construing all the constituent parts
\nof  the Act together and not by taking detached sections  or
\nto  take one word here and another there.  Exposition  ”  ex
\nvisceribus  actus ” is applicable.  Lincoln  College’s\tCase
\n(1).\n<\/p>\n
So  construed the provisions of the U.P. Act show  that\t the
\nmachinery  of  the Act has been devised with the  object  of
\nmaintaining  industrial peace so as to prevent\tinterference
\nwith  public safety or public order or with the\t maintenance
\nof  supplies  and  services essential to  the  life  of\t the
\ncommunity  or  of  employment.\t The Act  is  based  on\t the
\nnecessity  of achieving collective amity between labour\t and
\ncapital\t  by   means   of   conciliation,   mediation\t and
\nadjudication.\tThe object of the Act is the  prevention  of
\nindustrial  strife, strikes and lock-outs and the  promotion
\nof  industrial\tpeace  and  not to take\t the  place  of\t the
\nordinary  tribunals  of\t the land  for\tthe  enforcement  of
\ncontracts  between  an employer and an\tindividual  workman.
\nThus viewed the provisions of the Act lead to the conclusion
\nthat  its applicability to an individual dispute as  opposed
\nto  dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded  unless
\nit  acquires  the general characteristics of  an  industrial
\ndispute,  viz.,\t the  workmen as a body\t or  a\tconsiderable
\nsection\t of  them  make common\tcause  with  the  individual
\nworkman\t and thus create conditions contemplated by s. 3  of
\nthe  U.P. Act which is the foundation of State\tGovernmental
\naction\tunder that Act.\t The other provisions  which  follow
\nthat  section only subserve the carrying out of the  objects
\nof the Acts specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
The use of the word workman in the singular in rr. 4, 5\t and
\n15  forms the basis of the argument for the inclusion of  an
\nindividual  dispute  in the expression\tindustrial  dispute.
\nBut  this  suffers from more infirmities than one.   Rule  4
\nauthorises a workman to
\n(1)  3 Co. Rep. 58: 76 E. R. 764.\n<\/p>\n
761<\/span><\/p>\n
apply  to  a Conciliation Officer for the settlement  of  an
\nindustrial dispute.  The meaning sought to be given to\tthis
\nword is inconsistent with the language of the latter part of
\nthat rule;\n<\/p>\n
 or where no registered trade union of workmen exists in any
\nconcern or industry, the representatives not more than 5  in
\nnumber of the workmen………… duly elected.”
\nThe  first  proviso to r. 5 is no surer foundation  for\t the
\nargument  because in the context it can only be\t interpreted
\nto mean that, should there be an industrial dispute then all
\nworkmen who may individually be the cause of the dispute  or
\nare to be affected by its decision should get notices of the
\nproceedings.   Similarly,  r.  15  only\t provides  for\t the
\nrepresentation of ” a workman ” even if he is only one by an
\nofficer\t of a trade union or other person mentioned  in\t the
\nrule.\tBesides, s. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act  as  to
\nthe interpretation of the singular and the plural  consider-
\nably reduces the efficacy of the argument, which  altogether
\nloses its force in view of r. 26 which is as follows :
\n”  During  the pendency of any\tconciliation  proceeding  or
\nproceedings before the Tribunal or an Adjudicator in respect
\nof  any\t dispute  an employer shall not\t (a)  alter  to\t the
\nprejudice  of  the  workmen concerned in  such\tdispute\t the
\nconditions of service applicable to them immediately  before
\nthe  commencement  of such proceedings or (b)  discharge  or
\npunish,\t  whether  such\t punishment  is\t by   dismissal\t  or
\notherwise,  any workman concerned in such dispute save\twith
\nthe express permission in writing of a Conciliation  Officer
\nof  the area concerned irrespective of the fact whether\t the
\ndispute\t is  pending before a Board or the  Tribunal  or  an
\nAdjudicator.”\n<\/p>\n
The  use of the words ” workmen” and ” workman in the  above
\nrule  is  indicative  of  the intention\t of  the  Act  being
\napplicable  to\tcollective disputes and\t not  to  individual
\nones, and this is fortified by the finality and the  binding
\neffect\tto awards by r. 28 and more speciall.v by a.  18  of
\nthe Central Act which makes
\n98<\/span>
\n762<\/span>
\nawards\tbinding\t not  only on  the  individuals\t present  or
\nrepresented   but  on  all  the\t workmen  employed  in\t the
\nestablishment and even on future entrants.
\nAnother objection to reading these rules in the manner above
\nsuggested  is that it would be tantamount to  enlarging\t the
\nscope of the expression ‘industrial dispute’ and the  powers
\nconferred  on the State Government under s. 3 of the  U.  P.
\nAct.  The executive cannot under the power of framing  rules
\nand regulations clothe itself with powers which the  Statute
\nitself\tdoes  not give and which are inconsistent  with\t the
\ninterpretation\tput on the expression ‘industrial  dispute’.
\nThe  cardinal rule in regard to promulgation of bye-laws  or
\nmaking\trules  is  that\t they must  be\tlegi  fidei  rationi
\nconsona, and therefore all regulations which are contrary or
\nrepugnant  to  statutes\t under\twhich  they  are  made\t are
\nineffective.   If  the expression I industrial\tdispute’  as
\nordinarily  understood\tand,  construed\t conveys  a  dispute
\nbetween\t an employer on the one hand and the workmen  acting
\ncollectively  on  the other, then the  definition  of  those
\nwords  cannot be widened by a statutory rule  or  regulation
\npromulgated under the Statute or by Executive fiat.
\nI  The notification in the present case was under  s.  3(c),\n<\/p>\n
(d)  and  (g)  and  under  s. 8\t which\tdeal  with  (c)\t the
\nappointment   of  industrial  Courts,  (d)   referring\t any
\nindustrial  disputes  and (g)  incidental  or  supplementary
\nmatters.  The Executive may in the exercise of these  powers
\nmake  such  regulations which are necessary but\t under\tthat
\ngarb it cannot extend the definition of the term  industrial
\ndisputes, nor is this extended meaning necessary to subserve
\nthe objects of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
I  In our opinion therefore rules- 4, 5 and 15 of the  Rules
\ncannot\tbe  a valid foundation for sustaining  the  argument
\nraised that an individual dispute was within the  definition
\nof ‘industrial dispute’.  Ordinarily, an award of a tribunal
\nbinds  or affects the rights of parties to  the\t proceedings
\nbut   awards   of   Industrial\t Tribunals   have   extended
\nimplications  and may affect the rights of all workmen of  a
\nconcern\t or undertaking end even the future entrants.\tThis
\ndoctrine of
\n763<\/span>
\nrepresentation\twhich enlarges the meaning of  ‘parties’  in
\nthe U.P. & Central Acts is an essential idea associated with
\nindustrial disputes and support-, collectiveness as  opposed
\nto  individualism.   See  Latham  C.  J.  in  Metal   Trades
\nEmployers Association v. Amalgamated Engineering Union(1).
\nThen  there is the prohibition under r. 26 of the  U.P.\t Act
\nand  s.\t 33  of\t the  Central  Act  against  any  change  in
\nconditions of service during the pendency of the proceedings
\nthe  object of which is to ensure discipline and  industrial
\ntruce during that period which also supports the basic\tidea
\nof collectiveness in ‘industrial disputes’.
\nIn  Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.  V.  Raghunath
\nGopal Patwardhan<\/a> (2), this Court observed that decided cases
\nin  India  disclose  three  views  as  to  the\tmeaning\t  of
\n‘industrial dispute’\n<\/p>\n
(i)  a\tdispute\t between an employer and  a  single  workman
\ncannot be an ‘industrial dispute’;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) it can be an industrial dispute; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  it can not per se be an industrial dispute but
\nmay  become one if taken up by a trade union or a number  of
\nworkmen.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court  discussed the scope of  industrial\t dispute  as
\ndefined in s. 2(k), of the Central Act, and after  referring
\nto the conflict of judicial opinion as to its  applicability
\nto  the case of a dispute between an employer and  a  single
\nworkman further observed:\n<\/p>\n
of  the last of the three views stated above, and  there  is
\nconsiderable  reason  behind it.  Notwithstanding  that\t the
\nlanguage  of  s.  2(k) is wide enough  to  cover  a  dispute
\nbetween an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that- the
\nmachinery  provided  therein  should be set  in\t motion,  to
\nsettle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen  as
\na class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of
\na  workman  was\t not  intended\tto  be\tthe  subject  of  an
\nadjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken
\nup by the union or a number of workmen.”\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1935] 54 C.L.R. 387.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1956] S.C.R. 956.\n<\/p>\n
764<\/span><\/p>\n
Although the question did not directly arise, this Court  in
\nD  . N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and\tothers<\/a>(1)  discussed
\nthe  meaning of the expression ‘industrial dispute’ and\t was
\nof the opinion that it “conveys the meaning to the  ordinary
\nmind  that  the dispute must be such as would  affect  large
\ngroups\t of  workmen  and  employers  ranged   on   opposite
\nsides……  But  at  the same time, having  regard  to\t the
\nmodern\tconditions of society where capital an\tlabour\thave
\norganised themselves into groups for the purpose of fighting
\ntheir disputes and settling them on the basis of the  theory
\nthat  in  union is strength, and collective  bargaining\t has
\ncome  to stay, a single employee’s. case might develop\tinto
\nan industrial dispute, when as often happens, it is taken up
\nby  the trade union of which he is a member and there  is  a
\nconcerted demand by the employees for redress”.
\nThis  view is in consonance with the basic  idea  underlying
\nmodern industrial legislation.\tThe interpretation given  to
\nthe corresponding phrase “trade dispute” in English law\t and
\n“industrial  dispute”  in Australian Law also  accords\twith
\nthis view and in the absence of an express provision to\t the
\ncontrary or necessary intendment there is no reason to\tgive
\na  different interpretation to the expression in the  Indian
\nStatute.\n<\/p>\n
According  to English decisions an individual dispute  of  a
\nworkman is not included in ‘trade dispute’ which corresponds
\nto  ‘Industrial Dispute’ in the Indian Act.  In the  English
\nTrade Disputes Act of 1906 and 1919 as also in Reg. 58-AA of
\nthe Defence (General) Regulation, 1939, ‘trade dispute’\t was
\ndefined in language very similar to ‘industrial dispute’  in
\nthe Indian Statute.  Dealing with a trade dispute, Lord Shaw
\nin Conway v, Wade (2) said,:\n<\/p>\n
”  But\tI  cannot see my way to hold  that  “trade  dispute”
\nnecessarily  includes  accordingly every case of  person  al
\ndifference  between any one workman and one or more  of\t his
\nfellows.  It is true that after a, certain stage even such a
\ndispute, although originally grounded,
\n(1)  [1953] S.C.R. 302, 310.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1909] A.C, 596, 520.\n<\/p>\n
765<\/span><\/p>\n
it may be, upon personal animosity, may come to be a subject
\nin  which sides are taken, and may develop into a  situation
\nof  a  general aspect containing the  characteristics  of  a
\ntrade dispute; but until it reaches that stage I cannot hold
\nthat a trade dispute necessarily exists.”
\nLord  Wright  observed\tin  National  Association  of  Local
\nGovernment Officers v. Bolton Corporation<\/a> (1)
\n” I think the same may be said of the Industrial Courts\t Act
\nand of reg. 58-AA, in both of which the word ‘trade’ is used
\nin  the\t very wide connotation which it bears in  the  modem
\nlegislation   dealing\twith   conditions   of\t employment,
\nparticularly in relation to matters of collective bargaining
\nand the like..”\n<\/p>\n
Ex  parte  Keable  Press  Ltd.(2)  was\tan  instance  of  an
\nindividual   dispute  developing  into\ta  ‘trade   dispute’
\nbecause.  of  the  strike by a union to\t enforce  the  rein-
\nstatement  of  dismissed workman.  That was  how  this\tterm
\n(trade dispute) was interpreted by the Court of Appeal in R.
\nv.  National  Arbitration  Tribunal(3)\tafter  taking\tinto
\nconsideration the definition of the word ‘dispute’.
\nIn Australian cases also, without specific reference to\t any
\ndefinition of the phrase the courts have excluded individual
\ndisputes from the scope of industrial disputes.\t In Jumbunna
\nCoal Mine v. Victorian Coal Miners Association<\/a> (4), Griffths
\nC.J. observed:\n<\/p>\n
” An industrial dispute exists where a considerable  number-
\nof employees engaged in some branch of industry make  common
\ncause  in  demanding  from or refusing\tto  their  employers
\n(whether  one  or  more) some change in\t the  conditions  of
\nemployment\t   which\tis\t   denied\t  to
\nthem…………………………………………… ”
\nSimilarly  in  Federated  Saw  Mills  &\t Co.  Employees\t  of
\nAustralasia  v.\t James\tMoore & Son  Proprietory  Ltd.\t(5),
\nGriffths  C.J.\tgave the characteristics  of  an  industrial
\ndispute as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  It  is necessary at the outset to  consider\tthe  meaning
\nwhich the term ‘industrial dispute’ conveyed
\n(1)  [1943] A.C. 166, 185.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1943] 2 All E.R. 633.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1951] 2 All E.R. 828.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1908] 6 C.L.R. 309, 332.\n<\/p>\n
\t     (5) [1909] 8 C.L.R. 465, 487, 488.\n<\/p>\n
766<\/span><\/p>\n
in 1900 to the, minds of persons conversant with the
\nEnglish language…………………
\n“The   word   ‘industrial  denotes   two   qualities   which
\ndistinguish  them  from ordinary  private  disputes  between
\nindividuals,  namely  (2) that on one side at least  of\t the
\ndispute the disputants are a body of men acting collectively
\nand  not individually.” Isaacs J. in George Hudson  Ltd.  v.
\nAustralian Timber Workers’ Union(1) stated:
\n“The   very   nature   of  an\t‘industrial   dispute’,\t  as
\ndistinguished  from an individual dispute, is to obtain\t new
\nindustrisl   conditions,   not\tmerely\tfor   the   specific
\nindividuals  then working It is &’battle by  the  claimants,
\nnot for themselves alone and not as against the\t respondents
\nalone, but by the claimants so far. as they represent  their
\nclass
\nAccording  to Griffths C.J. “The term- “industrial  dispute”
\nconnotes  a,  real and substantial  difference\thaving\tsome
\nelement\t of  persistency, and likely, if  not  adjusted,  to
\nendanger  the  industrial  peace of  the  community”.\tVide
\nFederated Saw Mills Case(2) at p. 488.\tThe same meaning was
\nattached  to the expression by Latham C.J. in Metal  Traders
\nEmployers Association v. Amwlgamated Engineering Union(3) at
\np. 403:\n<\/p>\n
“Industrial disputes are essentially group contests-there is
\nalways an industrial group on at least one side.  A claim of
\nan individual employee against his employer is not in itself
\nan  industrial\tdispute\t We shall now refer  to\t the  Indian
\ndecisions which bear on this question.\n<\/p>\n
Rajamannar  C.J.  in Kandan Textile Ltd. v.  The  Industrial
\nTribunal,,Madras and another(4) held that the definition  of
\nindustrial dispute is wide enough to cover a dispute between
\nan  employer  and  an individual  workman  but\ttaking\tinto
\nconsideration s. 18 of the Central Act he was of the opinion
\nthat such an extended definition cannot be given to it in s.
\n2(k)  of the Central Act.  Mack J. agreed with the  decision
\nof Rajamannar C. J. but he said that the case of an
\nEnglish language.,
\n(1)  (1923] 32 C.L.R. 413, 441.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1909] 8 C.L.R. 465, 487, 488.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1935] 54 C.L.R. 387, 403.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1951 Madras 616.\n<\/p>\n
767<\/span><\/p>\n
individual  workman if taken up by the worker’s union  makes
\nsuch  a\t dispute an industrial dispute.\t In that  case\t1  1
\nitems\tof  difference\twere  referred\tto  the\t  Industrial
\nTribunal.,  One\t of the items in dispute  was  the  wrongful
\nremoval of a workman, Sundaram by name.\t In the’, High Court
\nan  objection was taken to the legality of the award on\t the
\nground that no industrial dispute existed and that there was
\nno  material before the Government on the basis of which  it
\ncould make a reference.\t It was held that the dispute as  to
\na  single  workman was not an  industrial  dispute.   Kandan
\nTextile\t Ltd.  case (1) was followed  in  United  Commercial
\nBank,  Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Labour, Madras (2)  which
\nwas   a\t  case\tunder  s.  41  of  the\tMadras\t Shops\t and
\nEstablishments\tAct  and  the right of appeal  given  to  an
\nindividual  employee  against  the  order  of  the  employer
\ndispensing with his services under s. 41(2) of Madras  Shops
\nand Establishments Act was challenged on the ground that  it
\nhad been taken away by the Central Act.\t It was held that an
\nindividual  worker  had the right  to  appeal.\t Vishwanatha
\nSastri\tJ.  in his judgment referred with  approval  to\t the
\ndistinction  made  between  an\tindividual  dispute  and  an
\nindustrial  dispute  in Kandan Textile\tLtd.  v.  Industrial
\nTribunal, Madras (supra).\n<\/p>\n
The  second  view  that\t such a\t dispute  falls\t within\t the
\ndefinition of the word “industrial dispute” is supported  by
\na decision of a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal-
\nSwadeshi  Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>  (3)  There
\nthe question was mainly decided on the- basis of s. 33-A  of
\nthe  Central Act (introduced in 1950) which gives the  right
\nto an individual workman dismissed or dealt with contrary to
\ns.  33 of the Act during an industrial dispute to raise\t the
\nmatter before a tribunal.  The introduction of s. 33-A would
\nnot  alter  the\t construction to be  placed  on\t the  phrase
\n‘industrial dispute’.  On the contrary it supports the\tview
\nthat an individual dispute is not comprised in that  phrase.
\nIn  view of what has been said above, we are of the  opinion
\nthat in so far as that case lay& down
\n(3)  [1953] 1 L.L.J. 757.\n<\/p>\n
768<\/span><\/p>\n
that  a\t dispute raised by an individual workman as  to\t his
\npersonal  grievance  is\t within an  industrial\tdispute,  it
\ncannot be said to have been correctly decided.
\nThe cases which support the third view are the following:
\nJ.   Chowdhury v. M. C. Bannerjee (1) Was a case in which  a
\nlino operator was removed from service on the ground of\t his
\nnegligence and arrears of work.\t The matter was referred  to
\nthe   Industrial  Tribunal  under  the\tCentral\t Act.\t The
\nManagement  moved  the\tHigh Court under  Art.\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution and s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act and it was
\nheld that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain\t the
\nmatter\tas  on\ta perusal of the  various  sections  of\t the
\nCentral\t Act  including\t ss. 10 and 18\tthe  dispute  of  an
\nindividual  workman was not covered by the  term  industrial
\ndispute.’
\nIn Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie & Co.
\na  suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of wages  on
\nthe basis of an award of an Industrial Tribunal and one\t -of
\nthe issues raised was’ whether an ‘individual dispute’\tfell
\nwithin\t‘industrial dispute’.  Following the judgment in  I.
\nChowdhury  v. M. C. Bannerjee (1), Bose J. held that it\t did
\nnot.\n<\/p>\n
Another case in which this view was held is N. 1.  Assurance
\nCo. v. C. G. I. Tribunal (3).  There the Government referred
\nthe question of dismissal of an employee of an Assurance Co.
\nand  it\t was not proved that his case was taken\t up  by\t the
\nemployees  association.\t  The  same  view  was\tadopted\t  in
\nStandard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Industrial Tribunal<\/a> (4).
\nIn  Lakshmi  Talkies, Madras v. Munuswami  and\tOthers\t(5),
\nBalakrishna Ayyar J. held that an industrial dispute’ arises
\nwhere  a  case\tof an individual workman is  espoused  by  a
\nunion.\t The same view was taken in Lynus & Co.\t v.  Hemanta
\nKumar Samanta (6).\n<\/p>\n
The  view  taken  in  these cases  is  in  accord  with\t the
\ninterpretation\twe  have put on the  expression\t ‘Industrial
\ndispute’ as defined in the U. P. Act or the Central Act.
\n(1)  [1935] 55 C.W.N. 256.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1953] A?\tC.W.N. tog.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [l953] I.L.R.  32 Patna 181
\n(4)  I.L.R. [1952] Trav.Co. 432.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  [1055] L.L.J. 477.\n<\/p>\n
‘(6) [1956] 2 L.L.J. 89,
\n769<\/span>
\nTaking into consideration the whole tenor of the Act and the
\ndecisions of this Court the decided cases to the extent that
\nthey  take a contrary view, i.e., an individual\t dispute  is
\ncomprised  in an ‘industrial dispute’ must unless  there  is
\nsomething peculiar- as to facts, be
\nIn  spite of the fact that the making of a reference by\t the
\nGovernment under the Industrial Disputes Act is the exercise
\nof its administrative powers, that is not destructive of the
\nrights of an aggrieved party to show that what was  referred
\nwas  not  an ‘industrial dispute’ at all and  therefore\t the
\njurisdiction  of the Industrial Tribunal to make  the  award
\ncan  be questioned, even though the factual existence  of  a
\ndispute may not be subject to a party’s challenge.  State of
\nMadras v. C. P.\n<\/p>\n
Sarathy (1),
\nIt may also be noted that the notification issued by the  U.
\nP. Government on January 3, 1953, already quoted proceeds on
\nthe  assumption that a dispute exists between the  “employer
\nand  his workmen”.  The points of dispute in the  reference,
\nhowever, comprise the wrongful termination of the service of
\nonly  Tajammul Hussain, a lino operator.  The words used  in
\nthe first part of the notification show that the  Government
\nwas  labouring under the misapprehension that  this  dispute
\nwas between the employer on the one hand and his workmen  on
\nthe  other,  which, in fact it was  not.   Tajammul  Hussain
\ncould not be termed work-, men (in the plural) nor could the
\nU. P. Working Journalists Union be called “his workmen”\t nor
\nis there any indication that the individual dispute had\t got
\ntransformed  into  an industrial dispute.  The\tvery  basis,
\ntherefore,  of the reference was bad and must be held to  be
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
We would, therefore, allow this appeal with costs.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1953] S.C.R. 334, 347.\n<\/p>\n
99<\/span>
\n770<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 532, 1957 SCR 754 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: THE NEWSPAPERS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/03\/1957 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\"},\"wordCount\":4756,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\",\"name\":\"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957","datePublished":"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957"},"wordCount":4756,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957","name":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, ... on 20 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T12:21:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-newspapers-ltd-vs-the-state-industrial-tribunal-on-20-march-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, … on 20 March, 1957"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}