{"id":210942,"date":"1968-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968"},"modified":"2015-12-21T21:40:10","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T16:10:10","slug":"workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","title":{"rendered":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 737, \t\t 1969 SCR (2) 913<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nWORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE MANAGEMENT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/11\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  737\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 913\n 1969 SCC  (1) 228\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1970 SC1205\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  s.  10-Requirements\t for\n'individual dispute' becoming an \"industrial dispute\".\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  workmen were appointed by the respondent company  under\nthe  designation of copy holders and an order in July  1959,\nissued by the management, expressly described them as  such.\nIt  was\t alleged  however,  that  despite  this\t order,\t the\nmanagement, both before and after the date of the order, had\nalways given  to the workmen the  work of  proofreaders.   A\ndispute\t arose whether the two workmen should be treated  as\nproof readers and the executive committee of the Delhi Union\nof  Journalists,  at a meeting on December  1,\t1966,  after\nconsidering  the  representation  made\tto  it\tby  the\t two\nemployees,  decided  to take up their  case  and  thereafter\ninitiated conciliation\tproceedings.  Eventually,  the Delhi\nAdministration\treferred  the  dispute.\t to  the  Industrial\nTribunal.   It\twas contended by the management\t before\t the\nTribunal that the dispute was an individual dispute and\t not\nan   industrial\t dispute  so  that  the\t Tribunal   had\t  no\njurisdiction  to adjudicate it.\t The Tribunal accepted\tthis\ncontention..  Evidence was led before the Tribunal  to\tshow\nthat  the  working Journalists employed\t by  the  respondent\ncompany numbered 131 out of whom 68 were employed in  Delhi.\nOut  of\t these,\t  31  were  members of the  Delhi  Union  of\nJournalists  which was an outside union and which  they\t had\njoined after July 1959.\t The Tribunal's view was that the 31\nworking journalists having joined the Union *after the cause\nof  action had arisen in July 1959,  the resolution  of\t the\nunion's\t   executive   committee  would\t   not\t  constitute\nespousal  of  the  workmen's  dispute  as there would be  no\nnexus between the dispute and the Union, and therefore,\t the\nresolution dated December 1, 1960 did not have the effect of\nconvening the dispute into an industrial dispute.\nIn appeal to this Court by special leave,\n    HELD:  The Tribunal's view that the dispute was  not  an\nindustrial dispute, was incorrect.\n    Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay,<\/a> [1962]\n3  S.C.R. 893, Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.  v.\nRaghunath  Gopal Patwardhan,<\/a> [1956] S.C.R.  956,  Newspapers\nLtd.  v. State Industrial Tribunal U.P.,<\/a> [1957]\t S.C.R.\t 754\nand  Workmen v. M\/s. Dharampal\tPremchand,<\/a> [1965]  3  S.C.R.\n394, referred to.\n    The espousal by the union could not be said to be beyond\ntime  as such espousal could only take place after  and\t not\nbefore the  dispute arose or the cause of action arose.\t The\ntest of an industrial dispute is whether at the date of\t the\nreference the dispute was taken up and supported by a union,\nor  by\tan appreciable, number of workmen.  In\tthe  present\ncase this test was clearly satisfied. [917 C]\n    If\tthe number of working journalists in the  respondent\ncompany\t were to be taken as 68, membership of the union  by\nas many as 31 working journalists would certainly confer  on\nthe union a representative character. Even if the number  of\nworking journalists were to be taken as 131,  it\n914\nwould not be unreasonable to say that 31, i.e. about 25%  of\nthem  would,  by becoming the members of the union,  give  a\nrepresentative character to the union.\tAt the material time\nthere  was no union of\tworking journalists employed by\t the\nrespondent  company.   Therefore,  in  accordance  with\t the\ndecision  in  the Workmen v. M\/s.  Dharampal  Premchand\t the<\/a>\nunion  could be said to have a representative character\t qua\nthe working journalists employed in the\t respondent company.\nThe union  had taken up the cause of the two workmen by\t its\nexecutive  committee  passing a resolution  and\t its  office\nbearers\t having\t followed up that resolution by\t taking\t the\nmatter\t before\t the  conciliation  officer.\tThough\t the\ngrievance  of the two workmen arose in July 1959,  when\t the\nmanagement  declined  to accept them  as  proof-readers\t the\nunion had sponsored their cause before the date of reference\nas  laid down in the case of The Hindu, Bombay. 'That  being\nthe  position it could not be  gain said  that the   dispute\nwas  transformed  into\tan  industrial\tdispute\t as  it\t was\nsponsored  by  a  union\t which\tpossessed  a  representative\ncharacter vis-a-vis the working journalists in the employ of\nthe respondent company. [919 C--G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 1967.
\n   Appeal by special leave from the Award  dated  April\t 10,
\n1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in Reference I.D. No.
\n241 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
    M.K.  Ramamurti,  Shyatnala Pappu,\tVineet\t Kumar\t and
\nMadan Mohan, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    S.V. Gupte, Lalit Bhasin, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta, for
\nthe respondent..\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Shelat, J.\tTwo workmen, Gulab Singh and Satya Pal, were
\nappointed  by  the respondent-company in December  1956\t and
\nFebruary  1955\trespectively under the designation  of\tcopy
\nholders.  It was alleged that they were entrusted  with\t the
\nduties of proofreaders and therefore they claimed that\tthey
\nshould\tbe  treated as such.  In July  1959  the  management
\nissued\tan order in  which the two workmen were described as
\ncopy-holders.\tIt was alleged that in spite of\t this  order
\nthe  management\t continued to give the workmen the  work  of
\nproof-readers.\tA dispute whether the two workmen should  be
\ntreated\t as  proof  readers having arisen  and\thaving\tbeen
\nespoused  by  the  Delhi Union\tof  Journalists,  the  Delhi
\nAdministration,\t by  a\tnotification dated  AUgust  2,\t1961
\nreferred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
\n    The\t management contended that the said dispute  was  an
\nindividual  dispute and not an industrial dispute  and\tthat
\nthat  being so it was wrongly referred to the  Tribunal\t and
\nthe  Tribunal  had no jurisdiction to  adjudicate  it.\t The
\nTribunal  raised the preliminary issue, namely, whether\t the
\ndispute\t relating to the  said two workmen was an industrial
\ndispute.  The Tribunal held that
\n915<\/span>
\nit was not an industrial dispute but was only an  individual
\ndispute\t of  the  two  workmen\tand  therefore\tit  had\t  no
\njurisdiction to adjudicate the said reference.\tThe  workmen
\nobtained  special leave from this Court and that is how this
\napppeal has come up before us for disposal.
\n    Apart  from the oral evidence, the appellants relied  on
\ntwo documents, Ex. WWI\/A, which purported to be the  minutes
\nof  a  meeting\theld  on November 15,  1960  of\t 17  working
\njournalists  and Ex. WB\/1 purporting to be the minutes of  a
\nmeeting\t of  the executive committee of the Delhi  Union  of
\nJournalists held on December 1, 1960.  The union  maintained
\nthat  these  two resolutions were proof of espousal  of\t the
\ndispute,  the  first  by an appreciable number\tof  the\t co-
\nworkers\t of the two aggrieved workmen and the second by\t the
\nunion  and  therefore  the  dispute  though  originally\t  an
\nindividual dispute was converted into an industrial dispute.
\nThe  Tribunal rejected\tEx. WW1\/A,  namely,  the minutes  of
\nthe  alleged  meeting of the 17 working journalists  in\t the
\nemploy\tof  the\t respondent  company  as  unreliable.\t The
\nTribunal  next\tconsidered whether, even assuming  that\t the
\nsaid  17 working journalists espoused the cause of  the\t two
\nworkmen\t that espousal transformed the dispute\tin  question
\ninto  an  industrial dispute, in other words,  whether\tthey
\nconstituted  an appreciable number sufficient to change\t the
\ndispute into an industrial dispute. At the material time the
\nBranch\toffice of the respondent company at Delhi  consisted
\nin all of 388 employees, out of whom 140 were working in the
\nPress.\tThe working journalists numbered 131, out of whom 63
\nwere  outstation  correspondents and the remaining  68\twere
\nworking journalists performing their duties in Delhi and New
\nDelhi.\t The Tribunal held that though the said\t 63  working
\njournalists  were outstation journalists  they\tnevertheless
\nbelonged  to  the staff of the\trespondent  company’s  Delhi
\nBranch,\t  and\ttherefore,  could  not\tbe   excluded\tfrom
\nconsideration.\t The  question which the Tribunal  posed  to
\nitself\t was  whether  17  out\tof  the\t said  131   working
\njournalists  could  be\tsaid to be  an\tappreciable  number.
\nAccording  to  the  Tribunal, even if  those  63  outstation
\ncorrespondents were excluded and only 68 working journalists
\nwere  considered,  17  of  them\t would\tnot  constitute\t  an
\nappreciable  number sufficient to convert the  said  dispute
\ninto  an industrial dispute. It also held that mere  passing
\nof  a resolution without anything done to follow it  up\t was
\nnot sufficient to constitute espousal. There was no evidence
\nthat  after passing the said alleged resolution on  November
\n15,   1960  anything further was done.\tOn these  facts\t the
\nTribunal did not consider the aforesaid resolution, assuming
\nthat it was passed, as constituting espousal.
\n    As\tregards\t the resolution dated December 1,  1960\t the
\nminutes\t of  the meeting of the executive committee  of\t the
\nDelhi\tUnion  of  Journalists\twere  produced\tbefore\t the
\nTribunal.  The minutes
\n916<\/span>
\nstated that the meeting after considering the representation
\nmade to it by the employees of the Indian Express decided to
\ntake  up  the  case of the two workmen\tand  authorised\t the
\noffice\tbearers\t of  the union\tto  initiate  the  necessary
\nproceedings.  The Tribunal found that the union initiated  a
\nfresh dispute before the Conciliation Officer and that there
\nwas no pending case initiated earlier, i.e., before December
\n1, 1960 by another union as alleged by the appellants  which
\ncould  have  been  continued by the union.  A  copy  of\t the
\nstatement   of\t claim\tfiled  by  the\tunion\tbefore\t the
\nConciliation Officer was also produced before the  Tribunal.
\nThere  was evidence that 31 working journalists employed  in
\nthe  respondent company had become the members of the  Delhi
\nUnion  of Journalists.\tBut they had joined the union  after
\nthe  said order of July 1959.  The Tribunals’ view was\tthat
\nthe  said  31 working journalists having  joined  the  Delhi
\nUnion of Journalists after the cause of action had arisen in
\nJuly  1959,  the said resolution of  the  union’s  executive
\ncommittee would not constitute espousal as there would be no
\nnexus between the dispute and the union, and therefore,\t the
\nresolution dated December 1, 1960 did not have the effect of
\nconverting the said dispute into an industrial dispute.
\n    Mr.\t Ramamurti, for the appellants, contended  that\t the
\nresolution  dated  December 1,\t1960 coupled with  the\tfact
\nthat the union initiated conciliation proceedings in respect
\nof  the\t demand of the said two workmen\t was  sufficient  to
\ntransform  the dispute into an industrial dispute.   On\t the
\nother hand, Mr. Gupte, appearing for the company,  contended
\nthat  a dispute which is prima facie an\t individual  dispute
\nmay  assume the character of an industrial dispute if it  is
\ntaken  up or espoused by an appreciable body of the  workmen
\nof  the establishment.\tEspousal by a union is\tregarded  as
\nsufficient,  for,  that means that it is an espousal  by  an
\nappreciable  number  of workmen in that\t establishment.\t  If
\nsuch a dispute is espoused by an outside union, the  workmen
\nof the establishment, appreciable in number, must be members
\nof such a union.  On these contention, the question for\t our
\ndetermination is whether the Delhi Union of Journalists\t can
\nbe said to have espoused the dispute of the two. workmen; if
\nso,  whether it did in time, and whether the union not being
\nexclusively  a\tunion  of  the\tworkmen\t employed  in\tthe*
\nrespondent  company, could espouse the said cause.
\n    The\t resolution  dated December 1, 1960  passed  by\t the
\nexecutive committee of the union was not disbelieved by\t the
\nTribunal.   That,  coupled  with the  fact  that  the  union
\nauthorities initiated the conciliation proceeding, must mean
\nthat  the union had espoused the cause of the  two  workmen.
\nThe  dispute arose in July 1959 when the management  refused
\nto treat the two work-\n<\/p>\n
917<\/span><\/p>\n
men  as proof-readers.\tThereafter the executive  committee,
\nafter  considering  a  representation  made  to\t it  by\t the
\nemployees  of  the  respondent company,\t as  the  resolution
\nreads,\tpassed\tthe said resolution authorising\t the  office
\nbearers\t of the union to initiate proceedings in the  matter
\nof the said dispute and the secretary accordingly  initiated
\nproceedings  before  the  conciliation\tofficer.   In  these
\ncircumstances,\tit  is not possible to\tappreciate  how\t the
\nespousal by the union can be said to be beyond time as\tsuch
\nespousal  can  only  take place after  and  not\t before\t the
\ndispute\t arose,\t or as counsel put it, the cause  of  action
\narose.\t In  The Bombay Union of Journalists v.\t The  Hindu,
\nBombay<\/a>(x) this Court in clear terms laid down that the\ttest
\nof  an\tindustrial  dispute is whether at the  date  of\t the
\nreference the dispute was taken up and supported by a union,
\nor  by\tan appreciable number of workmen.   There  being  no
\ndoubt  of  the union having taken up the cause\tof  the\t two
\nworkmen\t before\t the reference the first two  parts  of\t the
\nquestion must be answered in the affirmative.
\n    The next question is whether the cause of a workman in a
\nparticular establishment in an industry can be sponsored  by
\na union which is not of workmen of that establishment but is
\none  of\t which\tmembership  is\topen  to  workmen  of  other
\nestablishments\tin  that  industry.   In  Central  Provinces
\nTransport  Services  Ltd. v. Raghunath\tGopal  Patwardhan<\/a>(2)
\nthis Court noted that decided cases in India disclosed three
\nviews  as  to the meaning of an industrial  dispute:  (1)  a
\ndispute\t between an employer and a single workman cannot  be
\nan  industrial dispute, (2) it can be an industrial  dispute
\nand  (3 ) it cannot per se be an industrial dispute but\t may
\nbecome\tone  if\t taken up by a trade union or  a  number  of
\nworkmen.   After discussing the scope of industrial  dispute
\nas  defined  in sec. 2(k) of the Act it\t observed  that\t the
\npreponderance  of judicial opinion was-clearly in favour  of
\nthe last of the three views and that there was\tconsiderable
\nreason\tbehind\tit.   In the Newspapers Ltd.  v.  The  State
\nIndustrial  Tribunal,  U.P.<\/a>(3)\tthe  third  respondent\t was
\nemployed  as a lino typist by the appellant company.  On  an
\nallegation  of incompetence he was dismissed  from  service.
\nHis  case  was not taken up by any union of workers  of\t the
\nappellant  company,  nor  by any of the\t unions\t of  workmen
\nemployed in similar or allied trades.  But the U.P.  Working
\nJournalists Union, Lucknow, with which the third  respondent
\nhad  no concern, took the matter to the Conciliation  Board.
\nOn a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal by\t the
\nGovernment the legality of that reference was challenged  by
\nthe  appellant company on the ground that the  said  dispute
\ncould not be treated as an industrial dispute under the U.P.
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947′ which defined by sec.  2  an
\nindustrial dispute as having the same
\n(1)  [1962]  3\tS.C.R.\t893.\t\t\t (2)  [1956]
\nS.C.R. 956.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1957] S.C.R. 754.\n<\/p>\n
918<\/span><\/p>\n
meaning assigned to it in sec. 2(k) of the Central Act. This
\nCourt upheld the contention observing that the\tnotification
\nreferring the said dispute proceeded on an assumption that a
\ndispute existed between the employer and “his workmen”, that
\nTajammul  Hussain,  the\t workman  concerned,  could  not  be
\ndescribed   as\t“workmen”,  nor\t could\tthe   U.P.   Working
\nJournalists Union be called  “his workmen” nor was there any
\nevidence to show that a dispute had got transformed into  an
\nindustrial   dispute.\tThe  question  whether\t the   union
\nsponsoring  a  dispute must be the union of workmen  in\t the
\nestablishment in which the workman concerned is employed  or
\nnot had not so far arisen.  It seems. such a question  arose
\nfor  the  first\t time  in  the\tcase  of  Bombay  Union\t  of
\nJournalists  v. The Hindu, Bombay<\/a>(1).  The decision in\tthat
\ncase laid down (1) that the Industrial Disputes Act excluded
\nits  application to an individual dispute  as  distinguished
\nfrom  a dispute involving a group of workmen unless  such  a
\ndispute\t is made a common cause by a body or a\tconsiderable
\nsection\t of workmen and (2) the members of a union  who\t are
\nnot  workmen  of the employer against whom  the\t dispute  is
\nsought\tto  be\traised cannot by their\tsupport\t convert  an
\nindividual dispute into an industrial dispute.\tPersons\t who
\nseek  to support the cause must themselves be  directly\t and
\nsubstantially interested in the dispute and persons who\t are
\nnot the employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as
\nso interested.\tThe Court held that the dispute there  being
\nprima facie an individual dispute it was necessary in  order
\nto  convert it into an industrial dispute that it should  be
\ntaken  up by a union of the employees or by  an\t appreciable
\nnumber\tof employees of Hindu, Bombay.\tThe Bombay Union  of
\nJournalists not being a union of the employees of the Hindu,
\nBombay,\t but  a union of all employees in  the\tindustry  of
\njournalism  in\tBombay,\t its support of\t the  cause  of\t the
\nworkman\t concerned would not convert the individual  dispute
\ninto  an  industrial dispute.  The members of such  a  union
\ncannot\tbe  said to be persons\tsubstantially  and  directly
\ninterested in the dispute between the workman concerned\t and
\nhis  employer,\tthe Hindu Bombay.  But in  Workmen  v,\tM\/s.
\nDharampal   Premchand(2)  this Court,  after  reviewing\t the
\nprevious decisions, distinguished the case of Hindu,  Bombay
\nand held that notwithstanding the width of the words used in
\nsec.  2(k) of the Act a dispute raised\tby   an\t  individual
\nworkman\t cannot\t become\t an industrial\tdispute\t unless\t  it
\nis  supported  either by  his union  or in  the\t absence  of
\na  union by a number  of workmen, that a union\tmay  validly
\nraise  a  dispute though it may be a minority union  of\t the
\nworkmen\t employed  in an establishment that if there was  no
\nunion of  workmen in an\t establishment a group of  employees
\ncan  raise the dispute which becomes an\t industrial  dispute
\neven though it is a dispute relating to an individual
\n(1) [19623]  S.C.R. 893.\t\t (1) [1965] 3 S.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
394.
\n919<\/span>
\nworkman,   and\tlastly,\t that  where  the  workmen   of\t  an
\nestablishment have no union of their own and some or all  of
\nthem have joined a union of another establishment  belonging
\nto the same, industry, if such a union takes up the cause of
\nthe  workman working in an establishment which has no  union
\nof  its own, the dispute would become an industrial  dispute
\nif  such a union can claim a representative character  in  a
\nway  that its support would make the dispute  an  industrial
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
    The evidence of the union secretary was that in 1959-60,
\n31  working  journalists  of  the  respondent  company\twere
\nmembers of the Delhi Union of Journalists.  It was  nobody’s
\ncase  that  these  31 members did not  continue\t to  be\t the
\nmembers\t of  that union in 1960-61 also.  If the  number  of
\nworking\t journalists  in the respondent company were  to  be
\ntaken as 68 membership of the union by as many as 31 working
\njournalists   would   certainly\t confer\t on  the   union   a
\nrepresentative\tcharacter.  Even if the\t number\t of  working
\njournalists  were  to  be  taken as 131,  it  woUld  not  be
\nunreasonable to say that 31, i.e., about 25 % of them would,
\nby becoming the members of the union, give a  representative
\ncharacter to the union.\t It is clear from the evidence\tthat
\nat  the\t material  time\t there\twas  no\t union\tof   working
\njournalists employed by the respondent company.\t  Therefore,
\nin  accordance\twith  the decision in the  Workmen  v.\tM\/s.
\nDharampal  Premchand<\/a>(1)\t the  union can be said\t to  have  a
\nrepresentative\t character  qua\t the   working\t journalists
\nemployed  in the respondent company.  There can be no  doubt
\nthat the union had taken up the cause of the two workmen  by
\nits executive committee passing the said resolution and\t its
\noffice bearers having followed up that resolution by  taking
\nthe  matter  before the conciliation  officer.\t Though\t the
\ngrievance  of  the two workmen arose in July 1959  when\t the
\nmanagement  declined  to accept them  as  proof-readers\t the
\nunion had sponsored their cause before the date of reference
\nas  laid down in the case of Hindu, Bombay. ‘That being\t the
\nposition  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  the  dispute\t was
\ntransformed  into an industrial dispute as it was  sponsored
\nby a union which possessed a representative character vis-a-
\nvis   the  working  journalists\t in  the   employ   of\t the
\nrespondent company.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmust, therefore, hold that the Tribunal’s view\tthat
\nthe  dispute  was not an industrial dispute  was  incorrect.
\nThe  award,  therefore, will have to be set  aside  and\t the
\nappeal of the workmen allowed.\tThere will be no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 394.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 737, 1969 SCR (2) 913 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE MANAGEMENT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/11\/1968 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: […]<\/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-210942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWorkmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - 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\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-21T16:10:10+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T16:10:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2619,\"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\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\",\"name\":\"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T16:10:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - 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\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-21T16:10:10+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968","datePublished":"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T16:10:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968"},"wordCount":2619,"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\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968","name":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T16:10:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-indian-express-p-ltd-vs-the-management-on-26-november-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Workmen Of Indian Express (P) Ltd vs The Management on 26 November, 1968"}]},{"@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\/210942","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=210942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}