The Bombay Union of Journalists and Others v. the Hindu Bombay and Another

SHAH, J.-This is an appeal with special leave against an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. By its award the Tribunal rejected the reference boldini( that it had no jurisdiction to adju· dicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the Government of Bombay . Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) whu claimed to bea full time employee of the first respun­ dent-"The Hindu", Bombay-addressed a letter on February 15, 1956, to tho Managing Editor of "The Hindu"-a daily newspaper published at Madras - intimating that he was proceeding to Europe on March 1, 1956. On February 16, HJ56, the Assistant Editor of "The Hindu" informeC. Salivateeswaran that even though tho latter was not a full time employee of "The Hindu", they could "not a.How frequent breaks in the performance of" of his duties and that they would have to reli­ eve him of his duties as correspondent from March l, 1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him. Salivateeswarn having persisted in carrying out his project by letter dated February 29, 1956, he was informed by the Management that hu ceased to be a correspondent of "The Hindu" from March 1, 1956. After returning from his tour of Europe, Salivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinsta­ tement and called upon the m'l.nagement of "The Hindu" to treat the period of his absence out of India as leave. Tho management of "The Hindu" having declined to accede to that demand, Salivatees­ waran filed an application under s. 17 of the Bombay Working Journalist (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955, claiming Rs. 1,57,172-8-0 under diverse heads alleging that termination of his employment was wrongful and that it amounted to retrenchment. The manage­ ment of "The Hindu" denied that Salivateeswarn 1961 The Bombay Union of Journalists v. Tiu 'Hindu', Bombay Shah]. Tiu Bomba; L-'nio11 uf Jow11n/iJ/J V, 1'/u 'flindu', B'Jmbay Shah J. 8!)6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1()62) was tht·ir cmploy<'e and submitted that the Autho­ rity under Act 45 of I !l55 had no jurisdiction to <lecidc disputed quest.ions of fact. The Authority rejected this contention holding that he was compe­ tent to clecide <lisputcd questions arising in the case bcforo him. Thr management of "The Hindu"' prcscntC'd a petition under Act. 32 of tho Constitu· tion for a direction quashing the order of the Authority, contending th1t s. 17 of the Act did not empowor the Authority to act as a forum for adjudi­ cating disputed claims. This Court upheld [seo Ka.,turi and Sans (Private) Ltd. v. Salimtee.m:arnn(')] tho ple:L of tho i\Ia1mgcmt·nt of "The Hindu", but dismissed tho petition holding that no f undamcntal right of the Management was infringed by the order passed by tho Authority. Acting on tho view CXJH·css!'d by this Court the Authority declined to proceed with the appliclltio11, because disput~d questions of fa"t fell to be dotcrmined in the peti­ tion h1Jfore him. "Th·~ Hindu" had an office in Bombay since l!l:li. At the material time, "Tho Hindu'' had besid ~s ::laliva.teeswaran only nine employees-sovcn serving on the administrative side and two journa· lists-Venka.teswa.ra.n and Tiwari. Salivateeswa.ra.n and Venkatoswaran were members of tho Bombay Union of JournalistH: Tiwari, the other journalist employee, wa.; not a member of the Cnion. The Bomh:w Cnion of .Tournali8ts is a Trade Union, the membe;·ship of whi<'h iR opon to all persons who depend for their livelihood upon the practice o{ tho profos"ion of jounmliRm, including press photo­ graphers, artists, cartoonist and frec·lancc writers, This Cnion is admittedly not a Union of employees of "The Hindu", Bombay, but it is a Union of all pcrRon~ who depc11cl for their livelihood upon journalism in Bombay. By its resolution elated August !(), 195!i, the Bombay Cnion of .Journalists supported the claim of Sa.livateeswarnn in the appli· cation filed by him under s. 17 of Act 45 of 1!)55. (I: [1Yl9J S. C.R. I, • • .. - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 897 Between April 9, 1958, and April 15, HJ58, four letters were addressed by 225 members of the Union (amongst whom Venkateswaran was not included) informing tho Unio11 that the termination of employment of Salivateeswaran raised "questions of principle and it was necessary that there should be a proper adjuclication in which the principles may be settled" and therefore they supported the cause of Salivateeswaran and requested the Union to take all appropriate steps to approach the state of Bombay for referring the dispute to an appropriate tribunal for adjudication under s. 10 ( 1 )( c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Union claims that these letters amounted to a requisition for calling a meeting and that they were placed before an adjourned meeting of the General Body on April 17, 1958, held under the chairmanship of one D. V. Nathan, and in that meeting it was resolved to support the cause of Salivateeswaran in the dispute with "The Hindu", Bombay. On April 25, 1958, the Union wrote to the Proprietor of "The Hindu" Bombay to settle the dispute raised by Sa!ivateoswaran. "The Hindu" Bombay having declined to accede to the request, the Union moved the Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act to intervene. The dispute was taken up for Conciliation by the Conciliation Officer, Bombay, but after holding ~everal meetings with the parties, the Conciliation Officer by his report dated December 5, 1958, repor­ ted failure in his efforts to bring about conciliation. Thereafter, on .February 9, 1959, the 1'tate of Bombay referred the dispute between "The Hindu", Bombay, and Salivatecswaran for adjudication under s. 12(.5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,194 7. The order of tho Government, the eii'eot whereof falls for determination in this case is as follows:- "N o. AJN. 7458-H-Whereas the Govern­ ment of Bombay has considered the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under sub-section ( 4) of section 12 of the Industrial 1961 The Bombay llriion of Journalists v. The 'llindu', Bombay Shah]. 1961 Tiu Bombqy {)ruwn oj Jsuruiuts v. 1'ht j l/Uu/r/, B1mi«y Sh.ft]. 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I!J62] Disputl•s Aet, 194 7 (XIV of 1!)47), in respect of the dispute between the Hindu, Bombay and tho workman (Working Journalists) emp· loyecl under it over the demandR mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto; Aud whereas the Government of llomb:1.y are considering the afol'usaid report is satia­ fit·d that there is a case for reference of the di1p11te to a Tribunal; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers wnfcrred by sub-section (ii) of the Section 12 of th" Industrial Disputes Aet, i!)4i (XIV of Hl47), read with Section :l of the 'Vorking Journa­ lists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellane­ ot1s Provisions Act, 1955 (XIV of l!J55), the Government of Bombay hereby referR the said dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal consisting of 8hri M. H. Mchcr constituted under Qo,·ernmcnt· Notification, Labour and Social Welfare Department, :N"o. IDA. 1157 (b) dated the 12th lllarch, 1957 ," lly tho Schedule, the claim of Saliv11teesmiran to receive in the aggregate Rs. 1,52,172-8-0 under diverse heads was set out. "The Hindu", Dom bay, challenged the compq­ tcnce of the State GO\·ernment to refer this disp11t(J 011 three grounds: (I) that there was no industrial establishment of "Tho Hindu" in Bomb~y and, there­ fore, tlw Industrial Tribunal had 110 jurisdiction in the matter; (2) that Salivateeswaran was not a working journalist within the meaning of the Act and was not employed .i.s such by "Tho Hindu", and there being no relationship of employer and employee between •·Tho Hindu." and Salivateoswaran, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and (3) that there was no dispute between the Working Journalists of "The Hindu'', Bombay, on the one hand and the l\Ianagcmcnt on the other .. .. 1 , .. 38.C.R. SUPREME COURT 1tEPORTS 899 and the dispute raised by Salivateeswaran was mere­ ly an individual dispute which was not supported by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu", Bombay. The Tribunal rejected the first and the second grounds but upheld the third, ;ind holding that the dispute was merely an individual dispute between Salivateeswaran and "The Hindu", Bombay, which had not been supported by an appreciable number of employees of "The Hindu", Bombay, the Government of Bombay had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The terms of reference by the Government of Bombay under s. 12(2) indiPatc that the dispute was primarily between "The Hindu" Bombay, and the appellant a-single employee relating to his indivi­ dual claim in which the other employees of "The Hindu", Bombay, were, not directly interested. In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (1), this Court after setting out the three possible views on the question whether a dispute by an individual workman may be re­ garded as an industria 1 dispute within the meaning of s. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 observed, "The preponderance of judicial opinion is cearly in favour of the last of the three views stated above (i. e. a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot per se be an indus­ trial dispute, but it may become one if it is taken up by the Union or a number ofworkmen and .there is considerable reason behind it. Notwith­ standing that the language of s. 2(k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Di~putes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only 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 of an adjudication under the Act, when the eame ha.d not been taken (I) [1956] S. C, R. 956. 1961 7 he Bomht.y Union of Journalists v. The 'l!indu', Bombay Shah ]. 1~1 Tlrt BtlffliYly Union of J1urna/iJtJ v. The 'Hind1.1', Bombay Shah]. !JOO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962( up by the Union or a number of workmen." This view was reiterated in The Newspapers f,td. v. The Suite Inilu.~trial Trib1mal. U. P. (') Therefore, the applicability of tho Industrial DisputOll Act to an individual dispute as distinguiehed from a di putc involving a group of worknwn is excluded, unless the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with indivi· dual workman. The dispute, in the present case, boing prima far.ie, an individual dispute, in order that it may become an industrial digpute it had to be established that it had been tak<'n up by tho Union of employeos of "Tho Hindu", Bombay, or by an appreciable number of employees of "Tho Hindu", Bombay. Counsel for tho appellant contended that the dispute was supported by tho Bombay Union of .JournnJists of which Sali\·atces­ waran w:~ a member and that, in any event, it was supported by Venkateswnran and Tiwari, who w<'rc the only other employees in this establish­ ment. He also contended that in any evt>nt tho dispute having been takon up by tho Indian Fedo­ rntion of 'Vorking .Journalists after it was referred to the Tribunal, it had becomo an industrial dis­ pute. By its constitution the Bombay Union of Jonr­ nali><ts is a Union not of omployc<'S of on<' emplo­ yer, but of all employees in the industry of jour­ naliRm in Bombay. Support of thn cause, by t.ho Union, will not in our judgment convert the> in,fividu:\l dispute of ono of its momberH into an industrial di~pute. The disput-0 between "The Hindu", Bombay, and Sall\,atccswaran was in re~pcct of alleged wrongful termination of cmploy­ m<"1t; it could acquire tho charaoter of nn ind11Rtriril dispute only if it. was proved that it was, before it was referred, supported by tho Union of the umploy<'"S of "The Hindu", Bombay, or by an (ll [1957] S. C.R. 754. I . '· •• •.-> 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 901 appreciable number of its employees. In Workmen of Dima!C'l.whi Tea Estate v. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1 }. This Court held by a majority that the two tests of au industrial dispute as defined by sub-s. (k) of s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must, therefore be-(1) the dispute must be a real dispute capable of being settled by relief given by one party to the other and (2) the person in respect of whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non-employ­ ment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour (as the case may be), the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest, and this must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case, certain employees sought to raise a dispute about a person who was not a workman. In the present case members of the Union who were not workmen of the emplo­ yer against whom the dispute was sought to be raised, seek by supporting the dispute to convert what is prima facie an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The principle that the persons who seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute in our view ap~lies to this Class of casea also : persons who are not employees of the the same employer cannot be regarded as so inter­ ested, that by their support they may convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. The mere support to his cause by the Bombay Union of J ourna!ists cannot therefore assist the claim of Salivateeswaran so as to convert it into an indus­ trial dispute. But counsel for the appelln.nts submits that Venkateswaran being a member of the Bombay Union of J ournaliRts, support of the cause by that Union amounted to espousnl of the cause by Venka­ teswaran, and having regttrd to the fact that there were only three employees who were jour­ nalists of "The Hindu", Bombay, out of whom, (I) ::.958] S. C.R. 1156. JY!.JJ The Bombay Union of Journalists ' v. The 'Hindu', Bombay Shah]. 902 SUPREJ\.IB COURT ltEPORTS (1962] 1161 TkBombq.., Union of J 011rna li11!s VPnk:iteswaran had supported the cause, the dispute arqmred the character of an industrial clisputc. It is trup that the Executive Committee of the Bombay Union of ,Journalists had in August 1956, rcsolw•d to support the cause of Salivateeswaran \mt that resolution was in respect of the applica­ tion unrler Act 45 of 19:)5. Tho Union &ppeared hefore the Authority appointed by the Govern­ ment nf Rom bav :me! also in this Court in the Jl"tition under Art. :l~ of tho Constitution, but that support cannot, in our judgment asssit the daim now made by Sa.livateswaran. The pro- 1'1'PtlingR under s. Ii of the 'Working ,Journalists (Condit ions of Service) Act terminatl'd when the .-\ut hority rcfnse'\ to proceed with the petition. Again, there i~ nothing to show that V<·nkate8- waran hail participated in any of these proce<>d­ ings. v. Tlit 'I hndu', IJomb<~;· Sliah .7- V{'nkateswaran anrl Tiwari filed affidavits lwforc the Tribunal stating that the dispute bet­ wl'en ~alivatepswaran and thP management of "Tlw Hindu" was purf' ly a personal affair of the formt>r nnd that thev had not maclc common 1·ause with him in rcg~rd to tlie dispute or adopted !ii.'< dispntP as their own. Venkatcswaran and Tiwari stah·d in their affidavit.q th'lt they bad not at any t.ime, nor did they support Sa.livateea­ waran·H cldm in anv manner. Vcnkateswaran :tl~o ,1at<'<l that he had not at any time authorised th<' Bombay Union of .Journalists to take up SalivateeHwaran'e "matter" and to raiso the dis­ pute thcr<'on. The affidavitll filed by Vcnkatcs­ waran :mil Tiwari wen' almost in identical terms and it ma\' rcasonablv he inferred that these <'mploy<'cs had 11ctecl in concert, hut tlu•re is no r1•ason to Hupposc that they WN<', ns contended by Sali\·att'cswaran, coerced into filing the affidavits. Counsel for the appellants strongly relied upon a re•olution pasRed at. an Extraordin:i-ry :Meeting of the Bombay Umon of Journ&hste / ... - r 3 S.C.R. SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS 903 dated April 17, 1958, to take up the dispute of Salivateeswara.n against "The Hindu" under a.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to demand reliefs for the "retrenched journalist Salivateeswaran". But evidence in support of this resolution is very unsatisfactory. For reasons to be presently set out, wa are of the view that the evidence tends to establish the pfoa raised by the first respondent that the record of the alleged resolution was fabricated with a view to support the case of Salivateeswaran. The alleged meeting of April 17, 1958, was not convened as an Extraordinary General meet­ ing of the Union. It is claimed that it was an adjourned meeting, the earlier meeting having been held on April 5, 1958, and adjourned. Mahatame­ the Secretary of the Union at the relevant time­ deposed that a requisition having been received for calling a meeting the requisition was considered in the meeting dated April 17, 1958, anda resolution supporting the case of Salivateeswaran was passed. In cross-examination, he admitted that the agenda of the meeting was not available and that he was deposing about what happened in the meeting from memory. He stated that there were cyclostyled copies of the agenda which were destroyed and no copiPs were kept; that there was no agenda of the meeting of April 17 and that no copies of the notice were maintained; that no minutes of the General Body meeting were maintained' and that there was nothing in writing to show who attended the meetings of April 5 and Ap#l 17 and "all that happens in General Body melltings is recorded in annual reports". He admitted that the requisitions were received after the 5th of April and under the rules of the Union, 15 days' notice was necessary for convening a meeting. ,He stated that he had received all the requisitions before April 17, but there was no record about the receipt of the requisition. According to Mahatame, 225 mem· bers had signed the requisition and at the meeting 1961 The Bombt1:.'V Union of .7 ourrw.l i.~ ls v. The •f/i11du', Bth'1bay Shah .J. ' 1981 77¥ BOf11i"Y Union oJ· ]tnll'nll lists v. Tht 'Hin,t./, Bom6aJ they had asked the.t the matter be brought up, but there wa.s no record as to who wa.e present. Ho aBBerred that the notice of tho meeting de.ted April 17 waa issued but ho could not say whether it was iRsued on April 9 or thereafter. It is diffi­ cult to accept the testimony of Maha.tame that even though minutes of the Executive Committee's meetings were maintained, records relating to the General Body meetings were not preserved. Mahatame'e explanation that the agenda was cyclostylod an<! thereafter destroyed is too crude to be accepted. Other circumstances to which we will presently advert make it abundantly clear that the story about the resolution having been paSBed on April 17, 1958, is untrue. The original reeolution was produced in the course of the trial as Ext. U-86. This document contains inherent evidence that it was not 'made on April 17, 1958. It purports to be dated April 17, 1958, and bears the signature ofD. V. Nathan, the president, but by some mischance the year was originally written as 1959 and then altered to l!l58. This may very well indicate that the writer was writin!( in 1959 and not in 1958. D. V. Nathan, who it is stated presided over the meeting, bas not been examined. lllahntame stated that in the Annual Report of the year I 957-58 which was published sometime at the end of the year, 1958, there is a reference to the meeting of April 17, 1958, but in the Tllport the meetin~ of April 5 is mentioned, and the meeting of April 17 is not at all mentioned. The letters of the members are not in truth requisitions at all: they are merely requests made by some members to tho Union to support the cause of Salivateeswaran, and do not request the Secretary to call a meeting. If a req­ uisition, according to the rules was in fact recei­ ved, a meeting had to be called after notice of lfi days for that purpose. Under cl. i( c) of the Constitution and Rules of tho Bomba.y Union of Journalist.a meetings of the General Body require .. ·°';. ' -- 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 905 15 days' clear notice except when a meeting has been adjourned in which case a week's notice will suffice. It is also provided by cl. (g) that resolut­ ions rllgarding other business which a member may desire to be taken up at any meeting should also be given seven clear days before the meeting. Under cl. 19, a notice of a General Body meeting has to be sent to every member individually by the Secretary in the time prescribed in cl. 7 of the Constitution, and by cl. 18, sub-cl. 2 (a), the Secretary has to maintain the minutes of all meet­ ings, conduct all correspondence, convene all meetings, exereise supervision over the affairs and activities of the Union. Of the alleged meeting dated April 17, 1958, clear notice of 15 days was not given. Of resolutions regarding other business which a member may desire to be taken up at any meeting 7 days, clear notice is required by the rules, but it is not shown to have been given. There is no evidence that the notice for a General Body meeting of the time prescribed under cl. 7 was given to the members, and the Secretary had made a startling statement that he did not maintain any minutes of the meeting, but had copied out the reso­ lution on a loose sheet of paper. The subsequent conduct of the office bearers of the Union also strongly supports the contention raised by counsel for the respondents that the resolution is fabricated at some later date. In the letter dated April 25, 1958, it was stated that the Bombay Union of ,Journalists had taken up the dispute of Salivate­ eswaran and called upon "The Hindu", Bombay, to settle the dispute amicably, but there is no reference of the resolution passed on April 17, 1958. The resolution was not mentioned even in the statement of claim before the Industrial Tribu­ nal. In paragraph 33 of the statement of claim it was stated that more than 200 members of the Union had written to the Union supporting the working journalist (Salivateeswaran) and urging the Union to take up his case under Industrial Dis­ putes Act, but there was no reference to the reso- 1961 The Bomb'!)' Union oJ Journalists '" Tht 'Hindu', Bombay Shah]. 19&1 Tiu Bombay Union •f JovnuiJi1t.s v. Tiu 'Hindu•, BomHy Sh.h ]. !l06 SUPREME COURT REPOn:.rs [1!l6:l) lution dated April 17, 1958. "Tho Hindu" in para.graph 4 of its reply h&B expressly averred that apart from tho statement tha.t 225 members of the Union requested its Secretary to take up the Cl\use of Salivateeswaran, there is nothing to show th;i.t the Union a.s such had passed any resolution or authorised its Secrcto.ry to tako np Salivate­ eswanm's cause and to raise an industrial dispute thereon. This statement of "Tho Hindu" waa not chn,llcngerl by an affidavit in reply alleging th~i the claim of Salivatoeswaran was supported by a resolution of the l'nion. When Venkateswaran was examined on Juno 12, 1959, he was not asked in cross.examination about the r<'solution. Even 'rhen Si~livatceswaran was examined tho roaolution was not produced : it was for the first time pro­ duced on July 9, 195!1. Tho letters requesting the Union to espouse the ca.use of Salivatecswa.ran were written between April 9 and April 15, 1958, and it is suggested that the matter was ta.ken up in the meeting of April 17. If tho meeting of April 17 was an adjourned meeting (tho previous meet· ing being of April 5) in tho agend11. there could be no reference to the consideration of these letters and it could not take up frO!!h ma.tters. Beyond the bare sta.temont of llfahatamc supported by the intereBb·d testimony of Salivatecswaran there ia no roliable evidence that in the meeting of the 17th the Secretary moved the resolution about Sali­ vateuswnran 11.ncl it was adopted without opposi­ tion tho documentary evidence which should normally have been in existence if the case that the Union passed a resolution on April 17, l!l58, was true, has not been produced on the pica either that it was not maintained or tha.t it was destroyed. Even on the case of the appellants, there is nothing to show that notice of the meeting dat.ed April 17 convened for the pur­ pose of considering tho requisition wll.B ever given to Venkat.eswaran and if it wa.s not given, by the mere passing of a resolution by other mombera of the Union the oa1e of the appellant. that the claim ' ' ( - - ., 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 907 of Salivateeswaran was supported by Venkates­ waran cannot be supported. The Tribunal observed that if even after tho reference Venkateswaran and Tiwari ceased to support the cause of Salivateeswaran, being the only person who could support the cause, the refer. cnce must fail, and in support of that view relied upon the judgment of a Single Judgo of the Madras High Court in The Hindu v. The Working Jour­ nalists of the Hindu in ~Madras (1 ), but this decision ha..~ since been overruled by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Working Jouroolists o.f the Hindu v. 'l'he Hindu ('). In that case the Court observed : "It must be held that the jurisdic· tion of the labour court to proceed with the matter wholly depends on whether the industrial dispute referred to it for adjudication existed or was ap­ prehended on the date of the reference and not on any subsequent date. Having regard to the rele­ vant statutory provisions it must be held that the jurisdiction of the labour court to proceed with and adjudicate upon an industrial dispute stems from and is sustained, until it makes an award and the same becomes enforeea.ble, by the reference itself which has been made on the basis of an industrial dispute existing or apprehended on the date of the reference and that the juri.sdiction of the labour court to proceed in the matter is not in any way affected by the fact that subsequent to the date of the reference, the workers or a substantial section of them who had originally sponsored the cause, had la.tor resiled and withdrawn from it." In our view, these observations correctly set out the effect of a subsequent withdrawal of support by the workmen of a cause previously espoused by them. In each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute the test is whether at the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the Union of the workmen of the employer against whom the . (I) [1959) II L. L. J. 318. (2) [1961] I L. L. J. 288. 1961 rrhe Bombay Uniet' •f Journalists .. The •Hindu'. Bomb•y 1961 Tlte Bomhay Unioo of Jotatld/i.sts v. Tltt 4 Hi1URI, Bombay ShaA J. t 908 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. If Venkates­ waran or Tiwari had prior to the date of the re­ ference supported the cause of Sa.Ji,•atccswaran, by their subsequent affidavits tho rcfor~nce C'Ould not have been invalidated. But as we have already observed there was, in fact, no support to tho cause of Salivateoswaran by Venkat~swarau or by Tiwari awl therefore the dispute continued tu remain an individual diapute. The effect of the Mupport to the cause of Sali­ vn.tceswaran by tho Indian Federation of Working J ournnlists and the claim founded thereon does nut call fur any detailed consideration. After the roforonce was s~bmitted and it was pending hearing before t.hu Tribunal a lett<ir w:i.s written bv the President of the Indian Federati"n of Working ,Journalists to the General Secretary of tho Bombay Guion of Journalists on April 16, 195fJ, stating that the Federation had lent support to Saliva.tceswaran in the writ petition fik'<I by "Tho Hindu" in the ~uprome Court and thnt the Federation did so as it was a test case. Another letwr dat"d Apnl 17, 1959, was address~d by the General Recretary of the Indian Fedomtion of Working Journalists to the General Secretary, Bomb&y Union of Journalist& Bombay, stating that thoy had advised Salivatees­ wnran to filo a petition before the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court in Bombay and had also intervened in the Supreme Court, and further that tho Federation fully supported all actions taken by the Bombay Union of ,Journalists to get justice for Sali vateeswaran, The Secretary of the Union by letter dated July 9, 1959, wrote to the President and Secretary-General of tho Indian Feder&tion of W(Jrking Journalists that Salivatceswaran's case was being hoard for a week and that Salivatceswaran was to undergo cross-examination on the next day and that Mahatamo, tho previous Secretary was to give evidence. He further stated '"I am of opinion that we must produce somo document whereby it - .,. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 909 will be possible to prove that the Federation had supported Salivateeswa.ran's case" and requested the Federation to send a document in the form of a minute of a meeting or a letter or a resolution and if there WHS none such on the record, to pass & fresh resolution supporting the Bombay Union's action regarding Salivateeswaran's case and to send the same by return of post. Taking a clue from this letter, on July 24, 1959, the President of the Federation sent a copy of the resolution alleged to have'been adopted by the members of the Working Committee of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists regarding Salivateeswaran's case. The draft resolution sought to support the oase of the Bombay Union of Journalists before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, and to "direct the Union to fight the case with all its strength". This resolution is alleged to have been passed by circulation after the commencement of the adjudication proceedings. If the dispute was in its inception an individual dispute and continued to be such till the date of the reference by the Government of Bombay, it could not be converted into an indmtrial dispute by support subsequent to the reference even of work­ men interested in the dispute. We have already held that subsequent withdrawal of support will not take away the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal. On the same reasoning subsequent support will not convert what was an individual dispute at the time of reference into an industrial dispute. The resolu­ tion of the Indian Federation of Working Journa­ lists, assuming that it has any value, would not be sufficient to convert what was an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. On the view taken by us this appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs. Appeal di~mi1sed. 1961 Thi Bombay Union 1f Journalists v. The 'Hindu', Bomb.sy Shah].