The Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the High of Delhi in a Petition under Article 226, where the issue involved was whether the petitioners’ claim constituted an “industrial dispute” under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly focusing on the concept of espousal by a union, held that a dispute would not amount to an industrial dispute if the same is not espoused by the authorized Union of the workmen.
The petitioners, former employees of the respondent bank, sought judicial intervention after their discharge following the bank’s closure of its Delhi and Mumbai branches under the Early Separation Scheme (ESS). They challenged the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Delhi (CGIT) award, which had dismissed their dispute on grounds of non-espousal by a union, asserting that this dismissal violated principles of natural justice and failed to consider the merits of their claim.
The legal crux of the dispute before the High Court centered on whether the petitioners’ case was rightfully dismissed for lack of union espousal, as mandated by the Industrial Disputes Act for it to be considered an industrial dispute. The High Court’s analysis delved into the definition of industrial disputes under Section 2(k) of the Act and the necessity of union espousal for individual grievances to qualify as industrial disputes.
The court referenced jurisprudence which established that for a dispute to be recognized as an industrial dispute, it must either be raised by a substantial number of employees or be espoused by their union. The Court also observed that espousal of a dispute by a Union is important irrespective of whether the said Union comprises majority workmen or not.
In this instance, the CGIT found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their dispute was taken up by the union in a manner satisfying legal requirements. Consequently, the CGIT concluded it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners’ claims.
The High Court upheld the CGIT’s decision, agreeing that the dispute was not appropriately espoused by a union and, therefore, did not meet the definition of an industrial dispute under the Act. It observed that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is contingent upon existence of an industrial dispute, and once the Tribunal determines that there is no espousal of the dispute, it loses jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The High Court’s judgment reinforced the importance of union espousal in the adjudication of individual disputes under industrial law, emphasizing that the Court’s role under Article 226 does not extend to re-evaluating evidence presented to the tribunal. The petition was thus, dismissed, maintaining the CGIT’s original award.
