DISMISSAL ETC. OF AN INDIVIDUAL WORKMAN TO BE DEEMED TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE :

According to Section 2A, where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between the workman and his employer connected with or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

The ambit of Section 2A is not limited to bare discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman, but any dispute or difference between the workman and the employer connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination is to be deemed industrial dispute. It has to be considered whether the claim for gratuity is connected with or arises out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service. The meaning of the phrase “arising out” of is explained in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. I.M. Isaak, (1970) I LLJ 16. A thing is said to arise out of another when there is a close nexus between the two and one thing flows out of another as a consequence. The workman had claimed gratuity and that right flowed out of the termination of the services. Whether he is entitled to gratuity is a matter for the Tribunal to decide. It cannot be accepted that the claim of gratuity does not arise out of termination (Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, 1976 Lab. I.C. 1396).