Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary

Introduction

The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers.

Facts of the Case

1. The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent.
2. Although the dispute was resolved through conciliation proceedings, the Governor of Assam referred it for adjudication to a Tribunal after the State Government considered it as an "industrial dispute".

Issues before the Tribunal

1. Whether the management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate was justified in dismissing Dr K.P. Banerjee, A.M.O?
2. If not, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?”

Case History

1. District Judge held that Dr. K.P. Banerjee is not a "worker" within the meaning of S.2(S), hence no "industrial dispute" arises here that has to be adjudicated by a Tribunal.
2. Labour Appellate Tribunal also held that the employers who are not workmen can not be a party to an industrial dispute. 
3. Appeal in the Supreme Court through SLP.

Issues before the Supreme Court 

1. Whether a dispute related to a person not being a "workman" under the Industrial Dispute Act, of 1947 is an "industrial dispute" u/s.2(K) of the Act.
2. Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals: Whether the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving employees who may not fit the conventional definition of "workman."

Appellant's Arguments

1. "Industrial dispute" under S.2(K) provides that the dispute between employers and workmen shall be related to the employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour of "any person". The expression "any person" shall be equated with "any workmen" without any exclusion as provided in the definition of"workmen" under S. 2(S). Therefore in the present case also, the dispute is related to the non-employment of a person who is not a workman. Hence it is an "industrial dispute".

Ratio Decidendi

1. The expression "any person" under S.2(K) can't be interpreted in its ordinary meaning to include every person in the world because the Act is limited to regulating the relations of employers and workmen only.
2. The expression "any person" does not mean "any workmen" because:-
1. It will empower the workmen to raise a dispute representing any workman of any industry or from a different establishment, in which they themselves have no community interest.
2. Also, S.36 of the Act doesn't provide for the representation of a person who is not a party to a dispute.
3. Since the award of the Tribunal is binding on the parties, how can it be enforced on the person who is not the party but whose interest is being represented by the workmen?
3. The expression "any person" does not mean even "any employee" as suggested by the appellant's counsel because S. 2(S) of the Act excludes certain employees from the definition of "workman", hence such employees being non-workman are outside the protection of this Act.
4. The dispute raised by workmen in the general interest of labour welfare is also a wide interpretation. The interest should be direct or substantial and must be related to the principle of community of interest.
5. "Any person" has to be interpreted in terms of "workman", as observed by the Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Labour Appeal Cases.

Decisions

1. "Any person" under S.2(K) must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context. Two crucial limitations are:-
1. The dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party.
2. Both parties must have a direct or substantial interest in the employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour of that person for whom the dispute has been raised.
2. Since Dr. K.P. Banerjee was not a "workman", he is not entitled to be protected under this Act. Therefore, the dispute of a person not being a "workman" is not an "industrial dispute" but an "individual dispute". Hence the industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this kind of dispute.
3. Appeal dismissed.