Introduction and Historical Background

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) emerged in the aftermath of India's independence as a
crucial piece of legislation aimed at maintaining industrial peace and promoting harmonious
relations between employers and workers. The Act was enacted to replace the Trade Disputes
Act, 1929, which had proven inadequate in addressing the growing complexities of industrial
relations in post-independent India. The IDA draws significant inspiration from the
recommendations of the Whitley Commission (1929-31) and represents a comprehensive
framework for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

INDUSTRY

Definition-The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 has redefined the concept of
industry by recasting S. 2(i). The new definition was necessitated to overcome the impact of the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the late '70s' particularly that of in the Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewage Board v. Rajappa.

In the Bangalore Water Supply decision, the Supreme Court evolved a triple test, namely:—
1. there is systematic activity with the co-operation between the employer and employees for
the production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy the human wants and
wishes;
2. absence of profit motive or gainful object is irrelevant; and
3. the true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special
emphasis on the employer-employee relations.

Applying this test, the Supreme Court held that the Bangalore Water Supply is comprehended in
the term 'industry' and that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will govern the
settlement of the disputes come under the term 'industry'
The Bangalore Water Supply decision has, in effect, overruled a number of decisions, and thus
brought within the campus of 'industry' almost all avocations and activities. Hence, hospitals,
educational institutions, clubs, research institutes, solicitors' firm,etc. are covered in the term
'industry'.

The new definition- The new definition given to the term 'industry' by the 1982 amendment is
to be appreciated in the background stated above. The amendment gives due deference and
recognition to the guidelines and the triple test evolved by the Supreme Court in the Rajappa
decision. However, the amendment expressly excludes hospitals, educational and research
institutions, charitable and philanthropic services, activities of the Government Departments
involving sovereign functions, etc. from the purview of industry.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

The term 'dispute' as such is not defined anywhere in the Act. Thus, it can connote only the
ordinary meaning, namely, the difference. The difference between the parties must relate to
wages, bonus, dearness allowance, termination of employment or to any matter connected with
the terms and conditions of the employment or such general questions affecting the parties.
Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, any dispute connected with
employment or non-employment would ordinarily cover all matters that required settlements
between workmen and employers, whether those matters concerned the causes of their being
out of service or any question and it would also include within its scope the relief necessary for
bringing about harmonious relations between the employers and workers.

Individual Dispute— Industrial Dispute means any dispute or differences between

employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen
and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. (Ministry of Labor
& Emplymnt)

In Newspapers Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, U.P. the Newspapers Company dismissed an

employee. The U.P. Working Journalists Union with which the employee had no connection
took up his case. The Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal which ordered his
reinstatement. The matter reached the Supreme Court finally where the newspapers contended
that the reference to the tribunal is bad because the subject-matter of the dispute referred was an
individual dispute and not an industrial dispute.
The Supreme Court observed that preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the
view that an individual dispute may become an industrial dispute if it is taken up by a trade
union or a number of workmen. The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act contemplated that
the machinery provided therein should be set in motion to settle only the disputes which involve
the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman
was not intended to be the subject-matter of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had
not been taken up by the union or a number of workmen. To the ordinary mind it may mean that
the dispute must be such as would affect large groups of workmen and employers ranged on
opposite sides. But in the light of social conditions of society where capital and labour have
organised themselves into groups for the purpose of fighting their disputes and settling them on
the basis of theory, a single employee's case might develop into an industrial dispute when it is
taken up by the trade union of which he is a member and there is a concerted demand by the
employees for redress.

It has been held that it is not necessary that the dispute must be raised by all or majority
workmen in the industry.' It is enough that the controversy is raised between the employer on
one side and workmen on the other side. If the controversy affects or will affect the interests of
workmen as a class, the law requires in the interest of industrial peace, to examine and decide
the dispute.

The Bombay High Court held that, out of 31 employees, is a substantial number and the union
can espouse the cause of the workers

Causes of Industrial Disputes

Industrial disputes are a common occurrence in all industrialized economies, whether capitalist,
socialist, or mixed. Industry and industrial disputes are inherently linked, as they represent two
sides of the same coin. Employees, who contribute their time and effort to the industry, seek
higher wages, favorable working conditions, and a say in management decisions. Employers,
on the other hand, prioritize profits, productivity, quality, and cost control. These conflicting
interests create significant potential for disputes, making industrial disputes a key aspect of
industrialization.
Industrial disputes can stem from economic, political, social, or socio-economic factors.
Additionally, the attitudes of both employers and employees play a crucial role in contributing
to these conflicts. The causes of industrial disputes may be related to industry, management,
government policies, or trade unions.
The most common causes of industrial disputes include:
 1. Wages and allowances
2. Personnel policies
3. Retrenchment
4. Layoffs
5. Leave policies and working hours
6. Bonus payments
7. Indiscipline in the workplace
8. Workplace violence
9. Rivalry between trade unions
10. Failure to implement awards or agreements
11. Unmet employee demands
12. Excessive workload
13. Work performance standards
14. Surplus labor
15. Poor working conditions
16. Changes in manufacturing processes
17. Violation of established rules or codes
18. Issues related to shift work
19. Political influences
20. Business closures or lockouts
21. Ineffective communication between management and employees
22. Refusal to recognize trade unions
According to the Indian Labour Year Book, in 1998, there were a total of 1,097 industrial
disputes in India—283 in the public sector and 814 in the private sector. The number of lost
workdays (mandays) was approximately 7,576,000 in the public sector and 14,486,000 in the
private sector, amounting to a total loss of 22,062,000 workdays in that year alone. The impact
of industrial disputes on productivity tends to be more pronounced in the private sector
compared to the public sector. In some cases, there is no outright work stoppage, but strategies
employed by trade unions, such as "go slow," "tools down," "pen down," or "work to rule," still
result in reduced productivity.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

There was practically no effective machinery in India until the Second World War for the
settlement of industrial disputes. The Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 was an important
enactment in this direction. During the War, State intervention in the settlement of industrial
disputes became necessary and many adjudicators were appointed under the Defence of India
Rules. The 1947 Industrial Disputes Act is the first effective measure of all India application for
the settlement of industrial disputes. Under this Act, various tribunals have passed awards
regulating wages and other relations in many industries. The Act regulates the relationship of
the employers and employees in many matters irrespective of whether the employer is the State
or not. The Act streamlines a network of machinery and authorities stipulating their powers and
procedures. It lays down differential provisions to strikes and lock-outs. It prescribes the
penalties against the violation of the provisions. Similarly, the Act provides for the regulation of
lay retrenchment and also envisages compensation in appropriate cases.'
This Act makes provision for delegation of powers to the State and Central Government in the
matter of making rules. This invariably enables the State Government to make amendment to
the Act so as to suit the local conditions.
Objectives of the Industrial disputes act 1947
The Industrial dispute act of 1947 was enacted with the following objectives:-
a) To promote industrial peace
b) To do economic justice to the workmen

The objective according to the preamble of the Industrial disputes act 1947 are:
a) To make provisions for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.
b) The objective of all the labor legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent industrial
disputes.

Scope and Extent of the Industrial Disputes act 1947

The Industrial disputes act of 1947 extends to the whole of India. it came into enforcement on
1st April 1947.

Principal objects as stated by the supreme court in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea
Estate vs Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC

1) the act aims to promote the measures which are helpful in securing good and amity relations
between the employer and the employee.
2) An investigation and settlement of disputes between an employer and the employee,
employer and workmen, workmen and workmen and giving them the right of representation in
the trade unions.
3) the legislation also tries to do away with illegal strikes and lockouts.
4) it also helps to provide the relief to the workmen in the matter of lay off, retrenchment,
closure of undertaking, etc.
5) it helps to do Collective Bargaining.
The Industrial disputes act is social legislation which tries to maintain a balance between the
interest of the important pillars of the industrial establishment.

Conceptual Framework
APPLICATION OF THE ACT—
The Act applies to any specific area if it involves an 'industrial dispute. The interaction of the
interests of the employer and workmen in relation to an industry is sought to be regulated by the
Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the definitions of 'employer', 'workmen, 'industry' and 'industrial
disputes' are very relevant and in fact they form the basis to involve the application of the Act.

WHO CAN FILE A COMPLAINT?

Act provides u/s 2(k) any dispute or diff between employers and employees and employers and
workmen, and workmen and workmen. There should be a connected employment or non-
employment or with the term of employment or condition of labour of any person.

An Industrial Dispute is a COLLECTIVE DISPUTE. In respect to it, disputes relating to

retrenchment or termination, even if a single person can be raised. The act provides definition
u/s 2(k) presents it as a Collective Dispute which is either supported by the Union or substantial
number of fellow workmen. (This group is believed to have a common cause shared by each
one of them)

**Section 2(k): Definition of Industrial Dispute**

Section 2(k) defines an "industrial dispute" as any dispute or difference between employers and
employers, employers and workmen, or workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor, of
any person. This broad definition encompasses collective disputes that affect a group of
workmen or the workforce as a whole. Traditionally, for a dispute to qualify as an industrial
dispute under this section, it must be supported by a substantial body of workmen or a
recognized trade union. Individual grievances were not typically considered unless they had the
backing of other workmen or unions, thereby giving the dispute a collective character.

**Section 2A: Individual Disputes Deemed as Industrial Disputes**

Recognizing the limitations imposed by the collective nature of Section 2(k), the legislature
introduced Section 2A to address individual grievances. Section 2A stipulates that any dispute
or difference between an employer and an individual workman arising out of the latter's
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination is deemed to be an industrial dispute, even if
no other workman or union is a party to the dispute. This provision empowers individual
workmen to raise disputes concerning their termination without requiring the support of fellow
workmen or a trade union. The introduction of Section 2A thus ensures that individual
grievances related to termination are accorded the same legal standing as collective disputes,
facilitating their adjudication under the Act.

**Judicial Interpretation and Case Law**

Judicial pronouncements have further clarified the application of these sections. In the case of
*Workmen of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Management of Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.*, the Supreme Court held that for a dispute to be
considered an industrial dispute under Section 2(k), it must be espoused by the union or a
considerable number of workmen. However, with the enactment of Section 2A, an individual
workman can directly raise a dispute regarding termination without such espousal. This judicial
interpretation underscores the distinction between collective disputes under Section 2(k) and
individual disputes under Section 2A, highlighting the Act's evolution in addressing the needs
of individual workmen.

In *Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate* (1958 AIR
353), the Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute must be one in which the parties are
directly and substantially interested. This interpretation helps distinguish genuine industrial
disputes from frivolous claims.

Machinery for Settlement of Industrial Disputes

The Act provides for a multi-layered machinery for dispute resolution, incorporating both
voluntary and compulsory elements:

1. Works Committee (Section 3)

- Mandatory establishment in industrial establishments employing 100 or more workmen
- Comprises representatives of employers and workmen
- Primary function is to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations

2. Conciliation Officers (Section 4)

- Appointed by appropriate government
- Mediates and promotes settlement of industrial disputes
- In *Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd v. Industrial Tribunal* (1968 SCR (1) 515), the
Supreme Court emphasized the conciliatory nature of these proceedings

3. Board of Conciliation (Section 5)

- Ad hoc body appointed for specific disputes
- Investigates and promotes settlement
- Submits report to appropriate government within 2 months

4. Court of Inquiry (Section 6)

- Investigates matters connected with or relevant to industrial disputes
- Submits report within 6 months
- Findings not binding but may influence parties

5. Labour Courts (Section 7)

- Adjudicates disputes relating to matters specified in Second Schedule
- Primarily deals with rights disputes
- Jurisdiction clarified in *Workmen of Indian Standards Institution v. Management of Indian
Standards Institution* (1976 AIR 145)

6. Industrial Tribunals (Section 7A)

- Adjudicates more complex disputes specified in Second and Third Schedules
- Higher authority than Labour Courts
- Principles of natural justice must be followed as held in *State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh
Narsingh Parmar* (2001 AIR SC 706)

7. National Industrial Tribunals (Section 7B)

- Appointed by Central Government
- Handles disputes of national importance or affecting multiple states

Process of Dispute Resolution

The Industrial Disputes Act provides a systematic approach to dispute resolution, with each
stage carefully structured to promote fair and efficient settlement. The process follows these
detailed stages:

1. Raising the Dispute

The initial stage involves the proper raising of an industrial dispute, which must satisfy several
key requirements:

a) Proper Representation
- The dispute must be raised either by a recognized trade union or by a substantial number of
workmen
- Individual disputes can be converted to industrial disputes if espoused by a union or
substantial number of workers
- In *Workmen of Dharampal Premchand v. Management of Dharampal Premchand* (1965
AIR SC 1803), the Supreme Court held that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot
constitute an industrial dispute unless it is taken up by the union or a considerable number of
workmen
b) Commonality of Interest
- The landmark case of *Western India Match Company Ltd v. Workers Union* (1973 AIR
2650) established that there must be a community of interest among the workers raising the
dispute
- The dispute must relate to employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions
of labor
- In *Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen* (1960 AIR SC 56), the Court
emphasized that the dispute must be genuine and not merely academic

2. Conciliation Proceedings

Conciliation forms the backbone of the dispute resolution process under the Act:

a) Mandatory Nature
- Section 4 requires conciliation as the first step in most industrial disputes
- The conciliation officer must submit a report within 14 days of the commencement of
proceedings
- In *Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India* (1985 AIR
488), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of meaningful participation in conciliation
proceedings

b) Powers and Functions of Conciliation Officers

- Can enforce attendance of parties (Section 11)
- Authority to examine witnesses and documents
- In *Bihar State Electricity Board v. Nawal Kishore Rai* (1995 AIR SC 1512), the Court
outlined the scope of conciliation officer's powers

c) Failure Report
- If conciliation fails, a detailed failure report must be submitted
- Report must contain reasons for failure and recommendations
- As held in *Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Their Workmen* (1963 AIR SC 1332), the failure report
should be comprehensive and well-reasoned

3. Reference to Adjudication

The reference stage is crucial and involves careful consideration by the appropriate
government:

a) Government's Discretion
- Section 10 grants discretionary power to make reference
- In *State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy* (1953 AIR SC 53), the Supreme Court held that this
discretion must be exercised in public interest
- The landmark case of *Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay* (1964 AIR SC 1617)
established that while the power is discretionary, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily
b) Content of Reference
- Must be clear, specific, and unambiguous
- Should properly frame the points of dispute
- In *National Engineering Industries Ltd v. State of Rajasthan* (2000 AIR SC 469), the Court
emphasized the importance of proper framing of reference

4. Adjudication Process

The final stage involves formal adjudication before the appropriate forum:

a) Principles of Natural Justice

- Must follow fair procedure
- Both parties must get reasonable opportunity to present their case
- In *Workmen of Meenakshi Mills v. Meenakshi Mills* (1994 AIR SC 2696), the Court
established guidelines for fair adjudication

b) Powers of Tribunal/Labour Court

- Similar to civil court under Section 11
- Can regulate own procedure
- Power to grant interim relief as held in *Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers Union* (1959 AIR
SC 1342)

c) Award and Implementation

- Award becomes binding after 30 days of publication
- Cannot be challenged except under Article 226/227 of Constitution
- In *Nehru Yuvak Kendra Sangathan v. State of U.P.* (2011 AIR SC 1629), the Court
discussed the binding nature of awards and limitations on judicial review

Role of Appropriate Government

Throughout the process, the appropriate government plays a crucial role:

- Monitors the progress of dispute resolution
- Decides on reference to adjudication
- Publishes and implements awards
- In *State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan* (1960 AIR SC 1223), the Court outlined the
responsibilities of appropriate government in dispute resolution

Special Provisions

Strike and Lockout

- Notice required under Section 22
- Prohibited during pendency of conciliation proceedings
- Illegal strikes addressed in *Management of Kairbetta Estate v. Rajamanickam* (1960 AIR
893)

### Recovery of Money

- Section 33C provides summary procedure
- Monetary benefits can be recovered as arrears of land revenue
- Scope clarified in *Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai* (1976 AIR 1455)
## Recent Developments and Judicial Trends

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need for speedy resolution of industrial
disputes. In *Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation* (2010 AIR SC 1116),
the Court highlighted that prolonged litigation defeats the very purpose of the IDA.

Recent amendments have focused on:

- Strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
- Expanding the scope of direct negotiations
- Streamlining adjudication procedures

## Critical Analysis

### Strengths
1. Comprehensive framework for dispute resolution
2. Multiple forums catering to different types of disputes
3. Emphasis on conciliation and voluntary settlement

### Challenges
1. Time-consuming process
2. Excessive government control in dispute resolution
3. Overlapping jurisdiction of different authorities

## Conclusion

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a robust framework for industrial dispute resolution
in India. While the Act has successfully maintained industrial peace to a large extent, there is
room for improvement in terms of reducing delays and modernizing procedures. The judiciary
has played a crucial role in interpreting and evolving the law to meet contemporary challenges.

The success of the dispute resolution machinery depends largely on:

- Active participation of parties
- Efficient functioning of tribunals
- Proper exercise of government discretion
- Timely implementation of awards

As India moves towards becoming a major economic power, the effective resolution of
industrial disputes becomes increasingly important for sustainable industrial growth and
harmonious labor relations.

---

*Note: This answer draws from primary legal sources including the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, Supreme Court judgments, and recognized legal commentaries. The analysis reflects the
current legal position as established through statutory provisions and judicial precedents.*