HOW INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020 ?

Industrial Dispute has been defined under Section 2 (q) of the Code, which is as under :

(q) “Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or employers and workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with conditions of labour of any person and includes any dispute or difference between an individual worker and an employer connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of such worker.

Although Industrial Dispute is mainly concerned with dispute or difference between employers and workers, disputes between workers and workers and dispute between employers and employers are also covered under definition of “industrial dispute”.  Such disputes should be connected with- (i) employment (ii) non-employment (iii) terms of employment or (iv) conditions of labour or any person.

Industrial dispute also includes any dispute or difference between an individual worker and an employer connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of such worker.

The definition of industrial dispute seems to be expansive as in addition to disputes connected with employment, non-employment, terms of employment,  the term “ conditions of labour of any person” has been used. The Supreme Court in Workmen of Dimakuchi  Tea Estate Vs The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate  1958 SCR 1156  held that definition of industrial dispute must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context, the two crucial limitations are  (1) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to  be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non-employment terms of  employment, or conditions of labour (as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest. In the absence of such interest the dispute cannot be said to be a real dispute between the parties. Where workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person regarding whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the dispute is raised need not be strictly speaking a workman within the meaning of the Act but must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest.

Individual Dispute and Industrial Dispute

The Supreme Court has consistently held that individual disputes cannot be treated as industrial dispute. Industrial disputes have to be raised by trade union or substantial number of workers.

The Supreme Court observed in Workmen of M/S Dharmpal Premchand Vs Dharmpal Premchand (1965) 3 SCR 394 that for a dispute to be covered under “industrial dispute”  it should be shown that –  (1) The dispute is connected with the employment or non-employment of a workman. (2) The dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the union of workmen or by a number of workmen. The phrase “the union” merely indicates the union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a union of a minority of the workmen. (3) The establishment had no union of its own and some of the employees had joined the union of another establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite the fact that such union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned.

The Supreme Court in J. H. Jadhav Vs Forbes Gokak Ltd  2005 (3) SCC 202  observed that as far as espousal is concerned there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal. Doubtless, the union must normally express itself in the form of a resolution which should be proved if it is in issue. However, proof of support by the union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal had addressed its mind to the question, appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and found that the Union had espoused the appellant’s cause.

Dismissal, Retrenchment, Discharge and Terimination – Industrial Dispute

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been amended and Section 2A has been introduced whereby disputes between even individual workman and employer arising out of dismissal, retrenchment, discharge and termination of a workman has been deemed to be industrial dispute.

The definition of industrial dispute in Industrial Relations Code, 2020 incorporates essence of the Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and treats individual dispute arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of a worker as an industrial dispute.

___________________________________