A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark case of The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1960) 3 SCR 157, clarified the ambit of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court settled a pivotal controversy—whether a minority trade union, representing only a section of the workforce, can issue a valid notice to terminate an award binding on all workmen. The judgment ruled that such a minority body may indeed serve such a notice, affirming the inclusive and liberal character of Indian industrial jurisprudence. The Court’s interpretation ensured that legal access and remedy remained open even to smaller worker groups or less powerful trade unions, advancing the doctrine of collective but not majoritarian representation. This case continues to impact the landscape of labour law, balancing procedural legitimacy with the ethos of fairness and access. The ruling harmonizes the intent behind Sections 18 and 19 of the Act and grants operative flexibility to minority trade unions while recognizing the essential role of collective action in industrial dispute mechanisms. The Supreme Court’s decision drew upon precedents such as The Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, (1956) SCR 956 and The Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., (1957) SCR 754, expanding upon the interpretation of industrial dispute thresholds and statutory mandates under the Act.

Keywords: Industrial Disputes Act, Trade Union, Minority Union, Section 19(6), Award Termination, Binding Award, Industrial Tribunal

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date
March 3, 1960

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar and K. C. Das Gupta, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar

vii) Citation
(1960) 3 SCR 157

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Sections 18 and 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None expressly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Labour Law, Industrial Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose in the context of post-independence industrial regulation when industrial relations frameworks were rapidly evolving. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. operated a cement factory in Porbandar, where labour issues were governed under two successive awards resulting from industrial adjudication. Initially, workmen were represented by a registered trade union called Kamdar Mandal Cement Works, which ceased to exist after its registration was cancelled. Subsequently, two new unions were formed—Cement Kamdar Mandal and Cement Employees’ Union. The former, though representing a minority, issued notices to terminate the awards under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This prompted the employer to challenge the legitimacy of the notice, arguing that only a majority union could validly terminate the award. The dispute centered on interpreting whether “any party bound by the award” under Section 19(6) could include a minority group or union. The case therefore pivoted around fundamental interpretative principles within industrial jurisprudence and raised critical questions of legal standing, representation, and procedural justice within the adjudication framework of industrial disputes.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., the appellant, owned a factory known as Porbandar Cement Works. Originally, the workmen were represented by a registered trade union, Kamdar Mandal, which engaged in two industrial adjudications, resulting in awards on September 13, 1949, and July 24, 1951. These awards governed employer-employee relations and covered numerous employment conditions. Following the cancellation of the union’s registration in July 1954, two new unions emerged. The Cement Kamdar Mandal (registered July 7, 1954), representing a minority, issued notices to the employer on September 23, 1954 and December 20, 1954, seeking termination of the 1949 and 1951 awards respectively under Section 19(6) of the Act. It then raised fresh demands, leading the Saurashtra Government to refer the matter under Section 10(1)(c). The Cement Employees’ Union, representing the majority, did not issue a notice of termination but supported the minority union’s demands. The employer contested the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing the award had not been lawfully terminated since the notice came from a minority union. This formed the crux of the legal controversy.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a minority trade union—not representing the majority of the workmen—has the locus to terminate an existing award under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ii) Whether a minority of workmen bound by an award can validly issue a termination notice on behalf of all employees governed by that award.

iii) Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute if the prior award remained un-terminated.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that only a majority union representing a predominant segment of the workmen can issue a valid notice under Section 19(6). The termination of the award by a minority union would violate the statutory spirit of collective bargaining.

They argued that permitting a small faction to terminate a binding award would disrupt industrial harmony and allow minority groups to unsettle settled industrial conditions. They invoked The Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (1956) SCR 956, to reinforce the premise that industrial disputes and procedural legitimacy rest on collective action involving the majority of stakeholders[1].

They asserted that Section 18 of the Act binds all workmen to the award, and hence the termination process under Section 19(6) must also require a similarly inclusive mandate, ideally requiring majority representation[2].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 19(6) uses the term “any party bound by the award,” which should not be read restrictively. They stressed that even a minority group of workmen or a minority union that is legally registered can act collectively to serve a notice of termination.

They cited the The Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., (1957) SCR 754, to emphasize that a minority-sponsored dispute can still be valid under the Act if it pertains to employment conditions, and this should analogously apply to termination rights under Section 19(6)[3].

They also pointed out that the Cement Employees’ Union—though the majority union—supported the demands raised by the minority union. Hence, in essence, there was no actual conflict among workmen, and the majority union’s consent was implied[4].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Defines the parties to whom an award is binding, including all current and future employees in the establishment.

ii) Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Provides that an award continues beyond its operation period unless terminated by notice from “any party bound by the award”.

iii) Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Empowers the government to refer disputes for adjudication.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19(6) allows any group of workmen, even if representing a minority, to issue a notice terminating an award, provided they act collectively. The expression “any party bound by the award” includes not only majority unions but also minority unions and worker groups. The Court stressed that to insist on majority representation would be unfair in a fragmented union landscape, especially when many workers remain unorganised or outside union membership.

ii) The judgment harmonized Section 18, which binds all employees to the award, with Section 19(6), which allows any party bound to terminate it, clarifying that inclusive protection does not mean exclusive procedural rights for the majority[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that if a majority union disagrees with the minority union’s termination, it can negotiate with the employer and create a separate binding settlement under the law, thus preserving industrial stability[6].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Minority trade unions can initiate award termination.

• “Any party” in Section 19(6) includes minority groups acting collectively.

• Termination must not be by individual workmen alone.

• Industrial harmony must be balanced with procedural access for all workers, not just the majority.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of Section 19(6) paved the way for equitable representation in industrial adjudication. It protected the participatory rights of minority worker groups, which often face marginalisation. The ruling avoids procedural monopoly by larger unions and expands the democratic reach of the Industrial Disputes Act. It also encourages legal and collective action by all organized labour groups, regardless of size, reinforcing India’s commitment to fair labour practices. This judgment stands as a beacon for inclusive unionism and asserts that minority voice in industrial relations must not be silenced by majority power.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] The Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, (1956) SCR 956.

[2] The Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., (1957) SCR 754.

b. Important Statutes Referred

[3] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 10(1)(c), 18, and 19(6).
(https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329634/)