The Supreme Court has held that a formal written demand by a workman to the employer is not a sine qua non (an essential condition) for the existence of an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), particularly when the appropriate government is of the opinion that a dispute is “apprehended.”
The Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment on January 27, 2026, in the case of M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra and others (2026 INSC 87). The Court dismissed the management’s challenge to the reference of a dispute regarding the regularization of contract labourers. However, in a connected appeal (M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited v. Kishan Subhash Rathod and Others), the Court set aside the interim relief granted to the workmen, holding that Section 33(1) of the ID Act applies only when the employer-employee relationship is established.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a reference order by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was valid when the Union approached the Conciliation Officer directly without first serving a charter of demands on the Management. The Court ruled that under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, the government can refer a dispute if it “exists or is apprehended.” Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Appeal challenging the reference. Conversely, in the companion appeal regarding interim relief, the Court held that directing the management to provide work or pay wages to contract labourers before their status as “workmen” of the principal employer is adjudicated is unsustainable.
Background of the Case
The Appellant, M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited, is engaged in manufacturing transmission engineering products. The Company utilized the services of labour contractors (M/s Om Sai Manpower Services Ltd. and M/s Aurangabad Multi Services) to provide workers.
On June 11, 2019, the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union filed a representation directly before the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the ID Act. The Union alleged that the labour contracts were “sham, bogus, and camouflaged” to deny workers equal wages and benefits. They demanded that the workmen be taken on the muster roll of the Appellant and granted permanent status.
The Conciliation Officer admitted the dispute and, following the failure of conciliation proceedings, submitted a failure report on January 22, 2020. Based on this report, the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, on January 28, 2020.
The Management challenged the order of reference in the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 7158 of 2020), arguing that no “industrial dispute” existed as no demand notice was served on them prior to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Management’s Contentions: Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for the Management, argued that the statutory redressal mechanism requires a union to first serve a charter of demands on the Management. He contended that an industrial dispute exists only when such demands are rejected. Since the Union approached the Conciliation Officer directly, the proceedings were “ex facie illegal.” The Management relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1968) and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015).
The Union’s Contentions: Advocate Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, representing the Union, argued that serving a demand notice directly often results in immediate termination of service. He submitted that the Conciliation Officer has the power to intervene under Section 12(1) of the ID Act even in cases of “apprehended disputes.” The Union relied on Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda (1978), asserting that a written demand is not a mandatory precondition.
Court’s Analysis
On the Requirement of Demand Notice: The Court distinguished the present case from Sindhu Resettlement and Prabhakar. It noted that Sindhu Resettlement did not examine the government’s power to refer “apprehended” disputes. The Bench observed that Section 10(1) of the ID Act empowers the appropriate government to refer a dispute if it is of the opinion that an industrial dispute “exists or is apprehended.”
Referring to Shambu Nath Goyal, the Court reiterated:
“A formal written demand by a workman to the employer is not a sine qua non for the existence of an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the ID Act… An industrial dispute exists whenever there is a real and substantial difference between the parties.”
The Court held that the Management’s interpretation would render the word “apprehended” in Section 10(1) otiose. Justice Bhatti, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The power to refer an ‘apprehended’ dispute is the statutory application of the old adage ‘a stitch in time saves nine’. It enables the State to intervene before the industrial peace is shattered.”
On Sham Contracts and Jurisdiction: Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001), the Court held that the issue of whether a contract is sham or genuine is a disputed question of fact that must be adjudicated by the Industrial Court. The Court noted that since the Management denied the employer-employee relationship, the Union could not seek remedy under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act) but had to approach the Industrial Court under the ID Act.
“The Management, by raising a preliminary objection, cannot deprive the workers working through the registered contractor of a legal remedy… For the rule of law to prevail, the grievances are not wished away without adjudication.”
Decision
1. On the Validity of Reference (Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9970 of 2023): The Supreme Court dismissed the Management’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment and the order of reference. The Court directed the Industrial Court to frame the following issues:
- Whether the contracts through which employment is provided are sham and nominal.
- Whether the Management is the principal employer of the members of the Respondent-Union.
The Industrial Court was directed to dispose of the reference preferably within four months.
2. On Interim Relief (Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12192 of 2023): In the connected appeal, the Court set aside the orders of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court which had granted interim relief to the workmen. The lower courts had directed the Management to provide work or pay wages during the pendency of the complaint under Section 33-A of the ID Act.
The Supreme Court held that the definition of “workman” under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CLRA) differs from the ID Act. The interim relief granted amounted to a “virtual pre-judgment” of the main dispute.
“The applicability of Section 33(1) of the ID Act arises only when the status of a workman is established… At this stage, the interim prayer amounts to a virtual pre-judgment of the main dispute between the parties.”
The Court allowed this appeal, setting aside the interim orders, while granting liberty to the workmen to pray for interim measures in terms of the dictum in the SAIL judgment before the Industrial Court.
Case Details
- Case Title: M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra and Others (and connected appeal)
- Case No: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9970 of 2023 & SLP (Civil) No. 12192 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
