{"id":642,"date":"1993-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993"},"modified":"2018-10-07T07:06:08","modified_gmt":"2018-10-07T01:36:08","slug":"sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","title":{"rendered":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1)1050, \t 1993 SCC (2) 386<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDIAN HUME PIPE CO.  LTD.  AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/02\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (1)1050\t  1993 SCC  (2) 386\n JT 1993 (4)\t40\t  1993 SCALE  (1)596\n\n\nACT:\nLabour Law.\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 : Sections 11  and  17-A(4)-\nIndustrial Courts\/Tribunals-Not bound by technical rules  of\nprocedure-Award granting relief from a date anterior to date\nof   raising  dispute-Power  of-Exercise  of   such   power-\ncorrectness of-To be decided in the facts and  circumstances\nof each case.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant Union demanded payment of dearness  allowance\nto  the daily-rated workmen employed in the factory  of\t the\nrespondent  at\tthe  same  rate as was\tbeing  paid  to\t the\nmonthly-rated  employees  with\teffect\tfrom  1.1.1964.\t Ile\nmatter\twas  placed  before  the  Conciliation\tOfficer\t  on\n15.11.1965 and thereafter before the Conciliation Board.  On\n15.3.1967  the\tConciliation  Board  submitted\tits  failure\nreport\t On  26.4.1968\tthe  appellant-Union   submitted   a\nMemorandum to the Government reiterating the said demand and\nclaiming   the\tbenefit\t from  15.11.1965.  The\t  Government\nreferred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.\nThe  Respondent-employer filed a Writ  Petition\t challenging\nthe  validity of the order of reference and the\t High  Court\nset  aside  the\t order\tof  reference  by  consent   without\nprejudice to the rights of the Government for making a fresh\nreference.\nOn  March  19,1973 the appellant-Union\tsubmitted  a  demand\nclaiming  the same relief with effect from  15.11.1965.\t The\nGovernment  made a reference accordingly to  the  Industrial\nTribunal  on  26.3.1973.  By its Award\tdated  3.1.1977\t the\nTribunal directed the Respondent-employer to make payment of\nD.A.  at  the rate of 15% of the revised textile  rate\twith\neffect from 1.1.1968.\nThe  Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High  Court\nchallenging the Tribunal's Award.  Unable to succeed  before\na Single Judge,\n1051\nRespondent-preferred  an appeal and the Division Bench\theld\nthat the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award relief to the\nworkmen\t with effect from a date prior to the date on  which\nthe  dispute  was  raised.   Being  aggrieved  by  the\tsaid\njudgment, the appellant-union preferred the present appeal.\nOn behalf of the appellant-Union it was contended that since\nit  has\t been  agitating for grant of  D.A.  of\t daily-rated\nworkmen right from Nov. 1965, the Tribunal was justified  in\nawarding the same with effect from 1.4.1968.\nThe Respondent contended that the demand dated 26.4 1968 was\nnever  submitted to the Management, but was made  direct  to\nthe  Government which made a reference and the same was\t set\naside by the High Court; and that a fresh dispute was raised\non  193.73 and so the relief was rightly restricted  by\t the\nHigh Court to be effective only from that date viz. 193.73.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD  : 1. The Industrial Tribunal\/Labour Court is  supposed\nto  be\ta  substitute forum to\tthe  Civil  Court.   Broadly\nspeaking, the relief which the Civil Court could grant in an\nindustrial   dispute  can  be  granted\tby  the\t  Industrial\nTribunal\/Labour\t    Court.     Indeed\t  the\t  Industrial\nTribunal\/Labour Court is not bound by the Technical rules of\nprocedure  which bind the Civil Court.\tTherefore it  cannot\nbe  said that the Industrial Tribunal  or for that matter  a\nLabour\tCourt\thas no jurisdiction to grant relief  from  a\ndate  anterior to the date on which the dispute\t is  raised.\nIt  is\tone thing to say that the Tribunal has no  power  to\ngrant such relief and it is an altogether different thing to\nsay that in a given case it ought not to grant such  relief.\nWhether in a given case relief should be granted with effect\nfrom a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute is a\nmatter\tfor  the  Tribunal  to\tdecide\tin  the\t facts\t and\ncircumstances of that case.\n[1055H; 1056A-D] G\nJK.   Cotton  Spining and Weaving Mills\t v.  L.A.  Tribunal,\n(1963) 2 L.L.J. 436  AIR 1964 SC 737, relied on.\n2.   The demand raised on 193.73 was not a fresh demand.  It\nwas  reiteration  of  the  demand raised  its  far  back  as\nNovember 1965.\tIt is lot\n1052\nsuggested  that the demand raised in November 1965  was\t not\nraised\tbefore,\t or  submitted\tto  the\t Management.\tEven\notherwise, the demand raised on 193.73\t-  assuming that  it\nwas a fresh demand  was for extending the said benefit with\neffect from an anterior date namely, 15.11.1965. It was\t the\nsaid demand    which  was referred by the Government to\t the\nTribunal.   There  is no reason why the Tribunal  could\t not\nhave  awarded relief from the date earlier than 1973  if  it\nfound that such a demand was justified and warranted in\t the\nfacts  of  that\t case.\tActually the  Tribunal\tgranted\t the\nbenefit ,Kith effect from 1.1.1968 only and not with  effect\nfrom 15.11.1965 as demanded by the workmen. [1059H; 1060A-C]\nJhagrakhand Collieries (Private) Ltd. and another v. Central\nGovernment Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and others, 1960 (2)\nLabour Law Journal 71; Workmen New Egerton Woollen Mills  v.\nNew  Egerton Woollen Mills and others<\/a>, 1969 (2) LIJ 782\t and\nWorkmen\t of  National Tobacco Co, of India Ltd.\t v.  Messers\nNational Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (Civil Appeal) No. 852 of\n1966 disposed of on 18.10.1968 by S.C., distinguished.\n3.   The  High\tCourt's\t order\tsetting\t aside\tthe  earlier\nreference  does not say that the fresh dispute that  may  be\nraised\tshould\tclaim  the benefit only\t from  the  date  of\nraising, the fresh dispute.  The order indeed says that\t the\nfresh dispute to be raised was to be \"in respect of the same\ndemand-\"  Now  the words \"same demands\" mean the  very\tsame\nbeing  raised  by the workmen from  November  1965  onwards.\nTile said order of the High Court cannot be read as imposing\nor  implying any restriction upon the workmen to  limit\t the\nbenefit claimed by them only from the date of raising of the\nfresh  demand.\t It was perfectly open to them\tto  raise  a\ndemand,\t subsequent to the said order, claiming the  benefit\nwith effect from a date anterior to the date of raising\t the\ndemand. [1060F-G]\nThe  Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The  Industrial\nTribunal of Gujarat & Ors.,<\/a> [1968] 1 SCR 515, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3715 (NL) of
\n1-984.\n<\/p>\n
From  the  judgment and Order dated 1.9.1982 of\t the  Bombay
\nHigh Court in Appeal No. 247 of 1977 in Misc.  Petition\t No.
\n627 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
V.J.  Francis,\tV. Subramanian and P. Padma  Kumar  for\t the
\nAppel-\n<\/p>\n
1053<\/span><\/p>\n
lant.\n<\/p>\n
G.B. Pai, P. Ramaswami and H.S. Parihar for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred by the Labour
\nUnion,\tSarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay against the judgment  of
\nthe Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowing Writ Appeal
\nNo.   247  of  1977.   The  appeal  was\t preferred  by\t the
\nrespondent-employer.  The Indian Hume Pipe Company  Limited,
\nagainst\t the Judgment of a learned Single  Judge  dismissing
\nthe  Writ Petition preferred by it (Management) against\t the
\nAward of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay.  The main question
\narising for decision in this appeal pertains to the power of
\nthe  Industrial Tribunal to award relief with effect from  a
\ndate  anterior\tto the date of raising the  dispute  by\t the
\nLabour Union.\n<\/p>\n
On  2.11.65  the  appellant-Union  submitted  a\t demand\t for
\npayment\t of  dearness allowance to the\tdaily-rated  workmen
\nemployed at the respondents Wadala Factory at the same\trate
\nas is paid to the monthly-rated employees, with effect\tfrom
\n1.1.1964. On 15.11.1965 these demands were placed before the
\nConciliation Officer and thereafter before the\tConciliation
\nBoard.\t On 15.3.1967 the Conciliation Board  submitted\t its
\nfailure report.\t It appears that the recommendations of\t the
\nCentral Wage Board were awaited at that time and the company
\nagreed\tto implement the final recommendations of  the\tsaid
\nBoard  as accepted by the Central Government.  On  26.4.1968
\nthe  appellant-Union  submitted\t a  memorandum\tbefore\t the
\nGovernment  reiterating the said demand.  They\tclaimed\t the
\nsaid  benefit with effect from 15.11.1965. On  5.7.1968\t the
\nGovernment  referred  the  said dispute\t to  the  Industrial
\nTribunal.  In November, 1968 the respondent-company filed  a
\nWrit  Petition\tin  the Bombay High  Court  challenging\t the
\nvalidity  of the order of reference.  On 27.2.1973 the\tHigh
\nCourt disposed of the Writ Petition in the following  terms:
\n“By consent the order Exhibit-C dated 5.7.1968 is set  aside
\nwithout prejudice to the rights of the respondents to  refer
\nfresh  dispute in respect of the same demands  according  to
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
On  19.3.1973  the  appellant  submitted  a  demand  to\t the
\nmanagement  claiming the very same relief with\teffect\tfrom
\n15.11.1965. On the basis of the said demand, the  Government
\nmade a reference to the Industrial
\n1054<\/span>
\nTribunal,  Bombay, on 26.3.1973. The dispute referred  reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“All  the  daily rated workman from Wadala  factory  of\t the
\ncompany should be paid dearness allowance at the same  scale
\nthat  is  given to monthly rated staff of the  factory\twith
\nretrospective  effect  from 15th November 1965 i.e.  at\t the
\nrate given below.<\/p>\n
\nSlab Salary    D.A. index 311\t\tVariation for\n\t       to 320\t\t\t 10 points\nUp to Rs. 100  65% of basic salary or\n\t  revised textile scalefor--\t     5%\n\t  all days of month whi-\n\t  chever is higher.\nRs. 101 to 200\t    30%\t\t\t      2%\nRs. 201 to 300\t    15%\t\t\t      1%\nRs. 310 and above   10%\t\t\t      1%\"\n<\/pre>\n
On  3.1.1977 the Tribunal made its award.  It directed\tthat
\n“all  the  daily-rated workmen from Wadala  Factory  of\t the
\nCompany should be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 15%
\nof  the revised textile rate with effect from  1st  January,
\n1968.\tThe  Company  is further directed  to  pay  all\t the
\narrears to these workmen within two months from the date  of
\nthe publication of the award.  Award accordingly.  No  order
\nas to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
The Management questioned the validity of the said award  by
\nway   of   a  writ  petition  in  the  Bombay\tHigh   Court
\n(Miscellaneous\tPetition No. 627 of 1977).  On\t15.6.1977  a
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge dismissed the Writ  Petition  holding
\nthat  the error if any, in the award of the Tribunal is\t not
\nan  error  of jurisdiction calling  for\t interference  under
\nArticle\t 226  of the Constitution.  The\t respondent  company
\npreferred  an appeal which was disposed of by  the  Division
\nBeneh under its Judgment and Order dated 1.9.1992,  impugned
\nherein.\t  The Division Bench affirmed the award except\twith
\nrespect to the date from which the relief was granted by the
\nTribunal.   The Division Bench was of the opinion  that\t the
\nTribunal had no jurisdiction to award relief to the  workmen
\nwith  effect  from  a date prior to the date  on  which\t the
\ndispute\t was  raised.\tInasmuch as the\t dispute  which\t was
\nreferred  by the Government to the Industrial  Tribunal\t and
\nwhich  resulted\t in  the award in  question  was  raised  on
\n19.3.1973,  the Division Bench held that the relief  can  be
\ngranted only from 19.3.73 but not from an anterior
\n 1055<\/span>
\ndate.  The  Division  Bench was of  the\t opinion  that\tthis
\nrestriction  on the power of the Industrial  Tribunal  flows
\nfrom  the decisions of this Court, to which we\tshall  refer
\npresently.   The correctness of the said view is  questioned
\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  V.J.  Francis, the learned counsel for  the  appellant-
\nUnion  submitted  that inasmuch as the\tappellant-Union\t had
\nbeen agitating for grant of D.A. to the daily-rated  workmen
\nat  Wadala Factory at the same rate at which it is  paid  to
\nmonthly-rated  workmen,\t right\tfrom  November,\t 1965,\t the
\nTribunal was justified in awarding the relief from 1.4.1968.
\nThe  restriction perceived by the Division Bench is  neither
\nsanctioned  by\tlaw  nor does it  flow\tfrom  the  decisions
\nreferred to by the Division Bench.  On the other hand,\tShri
\nG.B.Pai, the learned counsel for the respondent-company sup-
\nported\tthe reasoning and conclusion of the Division  Bench.
\nLearned counsel submitted that an industrial dispute  arises
\nonly when the workmen raise a particular dispute before\t the
\nManagement.  No Industrial dispute can be said to arise when
\na dispute is raised by workmen not before the Management but
\nbefore\tthe.  Government.  The learned counsel contended  on
\nthe  above  basis  that\t the  so-called\t dispute  which\t was
\nreferred  by  the  Government on the  earlier  occasion\t (on
\n15.7.1968)  was not an industrial dispute, inasmuch  as\t the
\nbasis  of the said reference, namely the demand\t of  workmen
\ndated 26.4.1968, was never submitted before the\t Management,
\nit  was submitted directly to the Government and  Government
\nalone.\tThe said reference was, therefore, questioned by the
\nManagement  in\tthe Bombay High Court and it was  agreed  by
\nboth  the  parties before the High Court that the  order  of
\nreference be set aside and the Union be left free to raise a
\nfresh dispute.\tAccordingly the Union raised a fresh dispute
\non  19.3.1973. No doubt this demand was for payment  of\t the
\nsaid   D.A.  with  effect  from\t 15.11.1965,  even  so\t the
\nTribunal’s power is limited to grant of relief only from the
\ndate of raising of industrial dispute.\tThe learned  counsel
\nsubmitted  that\t more than one decision of  this  Court\t has
\naffirmed the said view.\n<\/p>\n
We  find it difficult to agree with Shri Pai.  In  principle
\nwe  find no basis for the said contention.   The  Industrial
\nDisputes Act does not provide for any such limitation.\t The
\ndefinition of the expression “industrial dispute” in  Clause
\n(K)  of\t Section-2  of the Act does  not  contain  any\tsuch
\nlimitation.   We  are unable to see on what basis  can\tsuch
\nrestriction  be inferred or implied.  It must be  remembered
\nthat the Industrial Tribunal\/Labour Court
\n1056<\/span>
\nis  supposed  to be a substitute forum to the  Civil  Court.
\nBroadly\t speaking,  the relief which the Civil\tCourt  could
\ngrant  in  an  industrial  dispute can\tbe  granted  by\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal\/Labour  Court.  Indeed  the  Industrial
\nTribunal\/Labour\t Court\tis not bound by technical  rules  of
\nprocedure  which  bind\tthe Civil  Court.  (See\t J.K  Cotton
\nSpinning and Weaving Mills v. L.A. Tribunal, 1963 (2) L.L.J.
\n436\/444\t  AIR 1964 SC 737) In such circumstances we  see  no
\njustification  for holding that the Industrial Tribunal\t  or
\nfor that matter a Labour Court\thas no jurisdiction to grant
\nrelief from a date anterior to the date on which the dispute
\nis  raised.   Take a case where the Labour  Union  raises  a
\ndispute\t on a particular date but says that the said  relief
\nshould\tbe granted from an anterior date.  We see no  reason
\nwhy the Industrial Tribunal should be held to have no  power
\nto grant relief with effect from such anterior date if it is
\nfound to be warranted by the facts and circumstances of\t the
\ncase.\tHere  it is necessary to emphasize  the\t distinction
\nbetween the existence of power and its exercise.  It is\t one
\nthing  to say that the Tribunal has no power to\t grant\tsuch
\nrelief\tand it is an altogether different thing to say\tthat
\nin  a given case it ought not to grant such relief.  We\t are
\nonly  emphasizing the aspect of power.\tWhether in  a  given
\ncase  relief  should  be granted with  effect  from  a\tdate
\nanterior to the date of raising the dispute is a matter\t for
\nthe  Tribunal  to decide in the facts and  circumstances  of
\nthat case.\n<\/p>\n
Now  let  us  examine whether any  decision  of\t this  Court
\nsupports  Mr. Pai’s contention.\t The first  decision  relied
\nupon by him is in Jhagrakhand Collieries (Private) Ltd.\t and
\nanother v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal.   Dhanbad
\nand   others,\t1960  (2)  Labour  Law\tJournal\t  71.\t The
\nobservations relied upon are at page 77 of the Report  which
\nread thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Besides, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to
\n\t      consider the fact that the present demand\t was
\n\t      made  for\t the first time in  September  1952.
\n\t      The  industrial tribunal had  considered\tthis
\n\t      question\t and  had  definitely\tfound\tthat
\n\t      notwithstanding\tthe   suggestion   by\t the
\n\t      respondents  to  the  contrary  there  was  no
\n\t      reliable\tevidence  to show that\tthis  demand
\n\t      had-been\tspecifically and clearly made  prior
\n\t      to 27 September 1952.  Now, if the respondents
\n\t      did not make a specific claim until  September
\n\t      1952  it\twould not be fair or just  to  allow
\n\t      them  the\t benefit  of  the  present  increase
\n\t      directed\tby the award even prior to the\tdate
\n\t      of the demand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 1057<\/span><\/p>\n
We  do not think that the above observations can be read  as
\nimposing a limitation, of the nature contended for Mr.\tPai,
\nupon  the power of the tribunal.  All that is said  by\tthis
\nCourt in the said case is that inasmuch as the demand itself
\nwas  raised  in September 1952 and no such demand  was\tever
\nmade  prior to September 1952, it was not “fair or just”  to
\ngrant  relief with effect from a date anterior to  September
\n1952.\n<\/p>\n
The  next decision relied upon is in Workmen of New  Eqerton
\nWoollen Mills v. New Eqerton Woollen Mills and others<\/a>,\t1969
\n2 LLJ 782.  The passage relied upon from this decision is at
\npage 791.  It reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As regards the date on which the award should
\n\t      come  into  force, industrial  tribunals\thave
\n\t      treated the date of demand and the date of the
\n\t      award  as two extreme points.  The  tribunals,
\n\t      however,\t have\tdiscretion   to\t  fix\t any
\n\t      intermediate    date   depending\t upon\t the
\n\t      circumstances of each case.  As has been\tsaid
\n\t      more than once, this Court would be  reluctant
\n\t      to  interfere  with  the\tdate  fixed  by\t the
\n\t      tribunal\tif  it has been done in\t the  proper
\n\t      exercise\tof its discretion.  In\tthe  present
\n\t      case  the\t tribunal felt that in\tfairness  to
\n\t      both the parties the intermediate date, namely
\n\t      1\t November 1963, When it passed\tits  interim
\n\t      award was the proper date from which the award
\n\t      should  come into operation.  The\t ground\t for
\n\t      selecting this date was that according to\t the
\n\t      tribunal\tthe prices of commodities  began  to
\n\t      rise  steeply in this region from\t that  date.
\n\t      That  ground has not been controverted by\t any
\n\t      material\tto the contrary.  There can,  there-
\n\t      fore,   barely   be   any\t  ground   for\t our
\n\t      interference.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  said  passage  can\t not be\t understood  as\t imposing  a
\nlimitation  upon the power and jurisdiction of the  Tribunal
\nnor can it be understood as holding that the Tribunal has no
\npower to grant relief with effect from the date earlier than
\nthe  date  of demand.  The observations\t aforesaid  must  be
\nunderstood in the facts and circumstances of that case.\t The
\nquestion  raised  now was not raised or considered  by\tthis
\nCourt  in  the said decision.  It does not appear  that\t the
\nworkmen had claimed a particular benefit with effect from  a
\ndate earlier to the date of raising the dispute nor does  it
\nappear\tthat the Government had referred any such claim\t for
\nadjudication  by  the  Tribunal.  In this case,\t it  may  be
\nremembered, not only the demand
\n1058<\/span>
\nraised\ton 19.3.73 was for extending the said  benefit\twith
\neffect from 15.11.1965, the reference by government was also
\nin  the same terms.  In the circumstances, the reference  to
\nthe  practice of Industrial Tribunals can not be  understood
\nas  a  legal proposition that the Tribunal has no  power  or
\njurisdiction to grant relief with effect from a date earlier
\nto  the date of demand even where such demand is raised\t and
\nreferred  to it by government.\tIt needs no emphasis that  a
\nJudgment  should be understood in the light of the facts  of
\nthat  case and no more should be read into it than  what  it
\nactually says.\n<\/p>\n
The third decision relied upon is an unreported decision  of
\nthis Court in Workmen of National Tobacco Co. of India\tLtd.
\nv.  Messrs National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (Civil  Appeal
\nNo. 852 of 1966 disposed of on 18.10.1968). The Judgment was
\ndelivered  by  Bhargava,  J. on behalf of  J.M.\t Shelat,  J.
\nhimself\t and C.A. Vaidialingam.\t J. The observations  relied
\nupon occur towards the end of the judgment and read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Apart from these points forming the  subject-
\n\t      matter  of  various issues,  a  general  point
\n\t      argued  on  behalf of the Union was  that\t the
\n\t      Tribunal\t should\t  have\t made\tthe    award
\n\t      enforceable  retrospectively  at\tleast\twith
\n\t      effect  from the date of the reference of\t the
\n\t      dispute  by  the Government to  the  Tribunal.
\n\t      This Court has, in a number of cases,  consis-
\n\t      tently  held  that the question of  making  an
\n\t      award retrospective is in the discretion of  a
\n\t      Tribunal, with the limitation that a  Tribunal
\n\t      will  be committing an error if it  makes\t the
\n\t      award  effective from a date earlier than\t the
\n\t      date  of\tdemand\ton the basis  of  which\t the
\n\t      industrial   dispute   is\t referred   to\t the
\n\t      Tribunal.\t This Court does not interfere\twith
\n\t      the   discretion\texercised  unreasonably\t  or
\n\t      arbitrarily.  In the present case, considering
\n\t      the   circumstance  that\tthere  will   be   a
\n\t      considerable   increase  in  the\t burden\t  of
\n\t      expenditure on the Company as a result of\t the
\n\t      revision\tof  wage  scales and  the  rates  of
\n\t      dearness\tallowance, the Tribunal has  decided
\n\t      that the award should be effective with effect
\n\t      from the usual date when it comes into  force,
\n\t      i.e.,   one  month  after\t the  date  of\t its
\n\t      publication  by  the Government.\tAs  we\thave
\n\t      just   indicated,\t the  Tribunal\t gave\tthis
\n\t      direction\t because of the increased burden  on
\n\t      the Company which would become
\n\t      1059<\/span>
\n\t      unbearably heavy if the Company is directed to
\n\t      make  payments for a number of past years\t for
\n\t      which  accounts  have already been  closed  by
\n\t      making  the award retrospective from the\tdate
\n\t      of reference.  The discretion exercised by the
\n\t      Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or un-
\n\t      reasonable,  so  that we find  no\t ground\t for
\n\t      interfering with the award on this point.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  learned  judge  says in the first\tinstance  that\t“the
\nquestion  of  making  an  award\t retrospective\tis  in\t the
\ndiscretion of the Tribunal” but then qualifies it by  saying
\nthat  “the Tribunal will be committing an error if it  makes
\nthe  award  effective from a date earlier than the  date  of
\ndemand\ton  the\t basis of which the  Industrial\t dispute  is
\nreferred  to  the  Tribunal”.  No provision of\tlaw  or\t any
\nprinciple  is cited in support of the said observation.\t  Be
\nthat  as  it  may,  it is significant  to  notice  that\t the
\nquestion  which arises in the case before us did  not  arise
\nconsideration  before the said Bench.  The argument for\t the
\nLabour Union in that case was that “the Tribunal should have
\nmade  the  award enforceable retrospectively at\t least\twith
\neffect from the date of the reference of the dispute by\t the
\nGovernment  to the Tribunal”.  No contention was urged\tthat
\nthe  award should be made effective from a date anterior  to
\nthe date of raising the dispute nor does it appear that that
\nwas  a case where the demand raised by the workmen  was\t for
\nextending  the\tbenefit with effect from an  anterior  date.
\nTherefore, there was no occasion for this Court to  consider
\nthe  question  now raised.  When the issue relating  to\t the
\npower  of  the Tribunal to grant a relief  or  benefit\twith
\neffect\tfrom  a\t date anterior to the date  of\traising\t the
\ndispute was not at all raised or considered by the Court, it
\nwould  not  be\tproper\tto read\t the  said  observations  as
\nnegativing  the said contention.  We are, therefore, of\t the
\nconsidered  opinion that the observations aforesaid  do\t not
\nsupport the contention urged by Shri Pai.\n<\/p>\n
So  far as the facts of the present case are  concerned,  it
\nmust  be  remembered that the Labour Union had\traised\tthis
\ndispute\t with  the  Management as  far\tback  as  2.11.1965.
\nConciliation  was taken up by Conciliation Officer  and\t the
\nConciliation  Board.  The Board had reported failure as\t far
\nback as 15.3.1967. It is the said demand which was raised by
\nthe Union in its Memorandum dated 26.4.1968 on the basis  of
\nwhich  a  reference  was  made\tby  the\t Government  to\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal on 5.7.1968. Even when a  fresh  demand
\nwas raised on 19.3.1973 the demand was that the\t daily-rated
\nworkmen should be given the benefit claimed by
\n1060<\/span>
\nthem with effect from 15.11.1965. Thus the demand raised  on
\n19.3.73\t was not a fresh demand.  It was reiteration of\t the
\ndemand\traised\tas  far back as November 1965.\t It  is\t not
\nsuggested  that the demand raised in November 1965  was\t not
\nraised\tbefore or submitted to the Management.\tEven  other-
\nwise,  the demand raised on 19.3.73  assuming that it was  a
\nfresh demand  was for extending the said benefit with effect
\nfrom  an anterior date namely, 15.11.1965. It was  the\tsaid
\ndemand which was referred by the Government to the Tribunal.
\nWe  see\t no reason why the Tribunal could not  have  awarded
\nrelief from the date earlier than 1973 if it found that such
\na  demand  was justified and warranted in the facts  of\t the
\ncase  Actually the Tribunal granted the benefit with  effect
\nfrom  1.1.1968 only and not with effect from  15.11.1965  as
\ndemanded by the Workmen.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Pai  then\tcontended that the  order  of  reference  to
\nIndustrial  Tribunal made on 5.7.1968 was questioned by\t the
\nManagement  by\tway of a Writ Petition in  the\tBombay\tHigh
\nCourt  and that the said Writ Petition was allowed  under  a
\nconsent\t order,\t whereunder the workmen agreed\tto  raise  a
\nfresh  dispute.\t  He submits that a fresh  dispute  means  a
\ndispute\t claiming  benefit only from the date on  which\t the
\ndispute\t is  raised.  We see no basis  for  such  restricted
\nunderstanding.\tThe order of the Court in Writ Petition\t 708
\nof 1968 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Order  dated  5.7.1968 is set  aside  without
\n\t      prejudice to the rights of the respondents  to
\n\t      refer  fresh  dispute in respect of  the\tsame
\n\t      demands according to Law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Firstly, it may be noticed that the order does not say\tthat
\nthe  fresh  dispute  that may be  raised  should  claim\t the
\nbenefit\t only  from the date of raising the  fresh  dispute.
\nSecondly,  and\tmore importantly, the order  says  that\t the
\nfresh dispute to be raised was to be “in respect of the same
\ndemands”.  Now the words “same demands” mean the  very\tsame
\ndemand\twhich was being raised by the workmen from  November
\n1965  onwards.\tWe are, therefore, unable to read  the\tsaid
\norder  of  the\tHigh  Court  as\t imposing  or  implying\t any
\nrestriction upon the workmen to limit the benefit claimed by
\nthem only from the date of the raising of the fresh  demand.
\nIt was perfectly open to them to raise a demand,  subsequent
\nto  the said order, claiming the benefit with effect from  a
\ndate anterior to the date of raising the demand.
\nMr. Pai then submitted that the demand raised by the workmen
\non 26.4.1968   cannot be said to raise an industrial dispute
\ninasmuch as an in-\n<\/p>\n
 1061<\/span><\/p>\n
dustrial dispute arises only when the demand is submitted to
\nthe  Management.   A  demand by\t workmen  addressed  to\t the
\nGovernment  can never constitute, an industrial dispute,  he
\nsubmits.   He,\ttherefore,  says that the  Tribunal  had  no
\njurisdiction to award the benefit with effect from 1.4.1968.
\nReliance  is placed upon the decision of this Court  in\t The
\nSindhu\tResettlement  Corporation  Lid\tv.,  The  Industrial
\nTribunal of Gujarat & Ors., [1968] 1 SCR 515.  In that\tcase
\nthe contention urged by the Management was that inasmuch  as
\nthe  workmen  did  not raise any  dispute  with\t respect  to
\nreinstatement and because the dispute raised by them related
\nonly to payment of retrenchment compensation, the Government
\nhad  no\t power\tor  justification  for\tmaking\ta  reference
\nrelating  to reinstatement.  It is in that  connection\tthat
\nthe  following observations, relied upon by Shri  Pai,\twere
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If  no  dispute\tat all\twas  raised  by\t the
\n\t      respondents  with the management, any  request
\n\t      sent by them to the Government would only be a
\n\t      demand  by them and not an industrial  dispute
\n\t      between\tthem   and   their   employer,\t Ai,
\n\t      industrial  dispute,  as defined,\t must  be  a
\n\t      dispute\tbetween\t employers  and\t  employers,
\n\t      employers\t  and  workmen,\t and   workmen\t and
\n\t      workmen.\t A  mere  demand  to  a\t Government,
\n\t      without a dispute being raised by the  workmen
\n\t      with   their   employer,\tcannot\t become\t  an
\n\t      industrial dispute.  Consequently the material
\n\t      before  the Tribunal, clearly showed  that  no
\n\t      such  industrial dispute, as was purported  to
\n\t      be  referred  by the State Government  to\t the
\n\t      Tribunal,\t  had  ever  existed   between\t the
\n\t      appellant\t Corpn. and the respondents and\t the
\n\t      State   Government  in  making  a\t  reference,
\n\t      obviously\t committed  an error in\t basing\t its
\n\t      opinion on material which was not relevant  to
\n\t      the formation of opinion.\t The Government\t had
\n\t      to come an opinion that an industrial  dispute
\n\t      did  exist  and  that opinion  could  only  be
\n\t      formed  on the basis that there was a  dispute
\n\t      between  the  appellant  and  the\t respondents
\n\t      relating\tto  reinstatement.   Such   material
\n\t      could  not  possibly exist when, as  early  as
\n\t      March  and  July, 1958, respondent No.  3\t and
\n\t      respondent  No.  2 respectively  had  confined
\n\t      their  demands to the management to  retrench-
\n\t      ment  compensation only and did not  make\t any
\n\t      demand  for reinstatement, On these facts,  it
\n\t      is  clear\t that  the  reference  made  by\t the
\n\t      Government was not competent.  The only
\n\t      1062<\/span>
\n\t      reference that the Government could have\tmade
\n\t      had  to be related to payment of\tretrenchment
\n\t      compensation which was the only subject matter
\n\t      of  dispute  between  the\t appellant  and\t the
\n\t      respondents.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is evident from a reading of the above para that the only
\ndispute raised by the workmen before the Management  related
\nto   retrenchment   compensation,  which  means\t  that\t the
\nindustrial  dispute  thus arising was confined only  to\t the
\npayment of retrenchment compensation.  The Workmen had never
\ndemanded   reinstatement  before  the\tManagement.    They,
\nhowever,   made\t  a  demand  for  reinstatement\t  in   their
\nrepresentation\/demand  made  before the Government  and\t the
\nGovernment referred the dispute relating to reinstatement to
\nthe  Tribunal.\t It is in the above circumstances  that\t the
\nsaid  observations  were made.\tIn this case,  however,\t the
\ndemand\tin  question was raised by the\tworkmen\t before\t the
\nManagement  as far back as November 1965.  Conciliation\t was
\nattempted but failed.  It is then that the workmen submitted
\na  demand  before the Government and the Government  made  a
\nreference on 5.7.1968. That reference was no doubt set aside
\nby  the High Court but we do not know the basis of the\tsaid
\ndecision.   Be\tthat as it may, the fact  remains  that\t the
\nworkmen\t were  left  free  to raise  a\tfresh  dispute\twith
\nreference to the “same demands”, which they actually did  on
\n19.3.1973.    They    expressly\t   claimed    the    benefit
\nretrospectively\t from 15.11.1965. We are, therefore,  unable
\nto see how the Observations in Sindhu help the Management in
\nthis case.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  above\t reasons, we are of  the  opinion  that\t the
\nDivision Bench was not right in holding that the  Industrial
\nTribunal  had  no power to grant the relief claimed  by\t the
\nWorkmen\t with effect from a date anterior to 19.3.1973\t(the
\ndate  on which the fresh demand was raised)  notwithstanding
\nthe  fact  that\t the said demand  specifically\tclaimed\t the
\nbenefit\t from an anterior date i.e. 15.11.1965,\t and.  which
\ndemand was referred to it by the Government.
\nFor  the  above\t reasons,  the appeal  is  allowed  and\t the
\nJudgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Bombay\tHigh
\nCourt in appeal No. 247 of 1977 dated 1.9.1992 is set aside.
\nThe Writ Petition filed by the Management in the Bombay High
\nCourt  questioning the award dated 3.1..1977  is  dismissed.
\nThere shall be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
1063<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1)1050, 1993 SCC (2) 386 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/02\/1993 […]<\/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-642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - 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\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-07T01:36:08+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T01:36:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\"},\"wordCount\":4021,\"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\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\",\"name\":\"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T01:36:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - 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\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-07T01:36:08+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993","datePublished":"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T01:36:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993"},"wordCount":4021,"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\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993","name":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T01:36:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarva-shramik-sangh-bombay-vs-indian-hume-pipe-co-ltd-and-anr-on-12-february-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1993"}]},{"@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\/642","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=642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}