Management, National Productivity ... vs S.N. Kaul on 20 May, 1969
It is sufficient to base this conclusion on the language of section 10(1) as the reference is made there under. The definition of "industrial dispute" in section 2(k) of the Act does nto in any way show that facts constituting the industrial dispute must have arisen after section 10(1) came into force. This legal position has long been well established. By Birla Brothers Ltd. v. Modak,) approved by the Supreme Court in Jahiruddin and others, v. K. D. Rathi. If an industrial dispute, as we find in section 2(k) of the Act, could be referred to adjudication under section 10(1) of the Act, even though it arose out offacts which had taken place prior to the commencement of section 10(1) of the Act, a fortiori, an industrial dispute falling within the definition of section 2-A of the Act can also be referred to adjudication under section 10(1), when the facts out of which it arose took place after the commencement of section 10(1), though before the commencement cf Section 2-A.
(3)The object of section 2-A is nto to create a right for the first time. On the contrary, its object is to widen the ambit of a pre-existing right. The right concerned is the right to move the Government to make a reference to adjudication of an industrial dispute. Prior to 1-12-1965 the Supreme Court had held that the definition of an industrial dispute in section 2(k) construed in the context of other provisions of the Act did nto include a dispute between an individual workman and his employer unless it was sponsored by other workmen or by a Union of workmen. This state of law had shown that the dispute between an individual workman and his employer could be a potential industrial dispute. For, on the same facts such an individual dispute could be converted into an industrial dispute as soon as the other workmen or the Union of workmen sponsored it. This was significant to show that it is nto one point of time but rather a continuum, which was the characteristic of industrial dispute, which may be potential or actual. An industrial dispute is nto something which just happens at a point of time and then is no longer there. By its every nature, an industrial dispute exists and continues till it is resolved either by industrial adjudication or by some other means. The existence of an individual dispute is not, therefore, to be found merely by looking to the moment of the discharge or dismissal, but by looking to the series of facts, which begin to happen one after the other from and after such a discharge or dismissal. An individual dispute could thus become an industrial dispute long after the discharge or dismissal had happened when it was sponsored by other workmen cr by the Union of workmen. On the same analogy, an individual dispute relating to discharge which was nto an industrial dispute prior to 1-12-1965 could also become an industrial dispute from 1-12-1965 onwards by virtue of the new section 2-A. The object of section 2-A was to give an individual dispute relating to a discharge, etc. the status of an industrial dispute in respect of such disputes only widen the ambit of the definition of an 'industrial dispute' in section 2(k) of the Act. If the original definition of 'industrial dispute' undoubtedly applies to a discharge or dismissal of a workman, which had taken place before the commencement of the Act, the amendment of the said definition of section 2-A, on the same principle would apply to a discharge or dismissal taking place prior to the commencement of section 2-A.
(4)The enactment of section 2-A was undertaken by the Parliament solely with a view to modify the law made by the judicial decisions holding that an 'industrial dispute' under the Act did nto include an individual dispute which was nto sponsored by other workmen or by a Union of workmen. In this sense section 2-A is a declaratory provision. The usual presumption against retrospective operation is nto applicable to declaratory statutes. The following statement of law in Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn.