Prior Written Demand Not Mandatory to Raise an Industrial Dispute

A recurring procedural objection raised by employers in industrial adjudication is that no valid industrial dispute exists unless the workmen or union first serve a prior written demand on the employer and the same is rejected. This contention, often deployed as a preliminary objection, has historically been used to stall conciliation, derail references under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), and delay adjudication on merits.

In M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026 INSC 87), the Supreme Court decisively rejected this restrictive interpretation and reaffirmed a foundational principle of Indian labour jurisprudence: a prior written demand is not a sine qua non for the existence of an industrial dispute, except where the statute expressly mandates it (such as in public utility services).

The judgment strengthens the preventive and remedial architecture of the ID Act, reinforces the wide amplitude of the expressions “dispute” and “apprehended dispute”, and curbs procedural obstructionism in labour litigation.

Statutory Framework under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

A. Definition of “Industrial Dispute” – Section 2(k)

Section 2(k) defines an industrial dispute as:

“any dispute or difference 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.”

The definition is deliberately broad. It does not prescribe:

• any particular form of demand,
• any requirement of written representation,
• or any mandatory sequence of steps before a dispute can arise.

What is essential is the existence of a real and substantial difference touching employment-related issues.

B. Reference of Disputes – Section 10

Section 10(1) empowers the appropriate Government to refer:

• an industrial dispute which exists, or
• an industrial dispute which is apprehended

to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

The inclusion of “apprehended” disputes is critical. It reflects the legislature’s intent to prevent industrial unrest before it escalates into strikes, lockouts, or mass terminations.

C. Conciliation Proceedings – Section 12

Section 12 authorises the Conciliation Officer to:

• investigate disputes,
• intervene proactively,
• promote settlement,
• and submit a failure report if conciliation does not succeed.

Nowhere does Section 12 impose a precondition that the union must first serve a written demand on the employer.

Facts

Contract labour engaged at M/s Premium Transmission Pvt. Ltd. apprehended termination and, through their union, directly approached the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging sham labour contracts and seeking regularisation and equal wages. After conciliation failed, the State referred the dispute to the Industrial Court. The management challenged the reference on the ground that no prior written demand was made on the employer before initiating conciliation, leading to the dispute before the Supreme Court. 

The Employer’s Objection: Demand as a Precondition

In Premium Transmission, the management challenged the reference on the ground that:

• the union directly approached the Conciliation Officer,
• no charter of demands was first served on the employer,
• hence no “industrial dispute” existed in law.

This argument relied heavily on Sindhu Resettlement Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal (1968) and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015).

Supreme Court’s Rejection of the “Mandatory Demand” Theory

A. Written Demand Not a Sine Qua Non

The Supreme Court unequivocally held that:

The Industrial Disputes Act does not mandate that a written demand must precede conciliation or reference, except in cases of public utility services.

The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda (1978) that:

• an industrial dispute can exist even without a formal written demand,
• insistence on such a requirement would amount to judicial legislation,
• and reading such a condition into Section 2(k) would rewrite the statute.

B. Importance of “Apprehended Dispute”

A central pillar of the judgment is the recognition of apprehended disputes.

The Court observed that:

• Section 10 expressly empowers the State to act even before a dispute crystallises,
• insisting on a prior demand would render the word “apprehended” otiose,
• such an interpretation defeats the preventive purpose of labour legislation.

The Court described this power as a statutory embodiment of the principle:

“A stitch in time saves nine.”

Distinguishing Earlier Case Law

A. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal (1968)

In Sindhu, the reference failed because:

• the workman had never raised the relevant demand against the employer,
• the dispute referred was entirely different from what was actually demanded.

The Supreme Court clarified that Sindhu does not lay down a universal rule requiring a prior demand in all cases.

B. Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture (2015)

In Prabhakar, the Court dealt with:

• a belated dispute raised after 14 years,
• absence of any live or subsisting controversy.

The ruling was based on delay and staleness, not on a rigid procedural requirement of a written demand.

C. Applicability of Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda (1978)

The Court held Shambu Nath Goyal to be the correct authority on the point, as it:

• directly interpreted Section 2(k) and Section 10,
• recognised implied, constructive, and apprehended disputes,
• rejected the notion that disputes arise only after formal demand and rejection.

Tripartite Disputes and Contract Labour Context

The Premium Transmission case involved:

• contract labour engaged through registered contractors,
• allegations that the contract was sham and camouflage,
• denial by management of employer–employee relationship.

In such cases, the Court held:

• insisting on a prior demand to the principal employer is unrealistic,
• service of a demand may lead to immediate termination of contract labour,
• adjudication of the employer–employee relationship is itself a matter for the Industrial Tribunal.

Conciliation Officer’s Role: Preventive, Not Adjudicatory

The Court emphasised that:

• conciliation is not a trial,
• the Conciliation Officer need not decide the merits,
• procedural manuals are directory, not mandatory,
• the officer can intervene on credible apprehension of industrial unrest.

The Government’s satisfaction under Section 10 is administrative, not judicial.

Policy Rationale: Industrial Peace Over Procedural Formalism

The Supreme Court warned against allowing employers to:

• raise preliminary objections,
• stall conciliation and reference,
• delay adjudication for years,
• exhaust workmen through procedural litigation.

Relying on D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, the Court reiterated that labour adjudication must not be paralysed by technical objections.

Key Takeaways Emerging from the Judgment

1. Prior written demand is not mandatory to raise an industrial dispute.
2. An industrial dispute may be existing or apprehended.
3. The State can intervene before conflict escalates.
4. Conciliation can commence even without prior employer-level negotiation.
5. Procedural objections must not defeat substantive labour rights.
6. Disputed employer–employee relationships require adjudication, not dismissal at the threshold.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026 INSC 87) authoritatively settles that a prior written demand on the employer is not mandatory for raising an industrial dispute, except where the statute expressly requires it, such as in public utility services. By reaffirming that an industrial dispute may be existing or apprehended, the Court preserves the preventive and welfare-oriented character of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ensuring that conciliation and reference mechanisms are not defeated by procedural formalism.

The judgment curbs dilatory preliminary objections, recognises the practical realities faced by workmen, especially contract labour disputing sham arrangements, and reinforces that industrial peace and substantive justice must prevail over technical hurdles, leaving the merits of disputes to be adjudicated by the appropriate industrial forum.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams