Judgment

SHELAT J. :- On May 9, 1956 the appellant-company appointed respondent 3 as a foreman on probation for a period of six months. On expiry of that period the probationary period was extended from time to time and ultimately respondent 3 was transferred to the labour office of the company. On May 29, 1957, while respondent 3 was still serving his probationary period, the company terminated his service. The matter was thereupon taken up by respondent 1 before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, who registered the case as Case No. 83B/57. For the reasons hereinafter stated, no conciliation could be arrived at and the State Government declined to make a reference for adjudication under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). On the said refusal respondent 3 filed a writ petition in the High Court for a mandamus. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the decision of the State Government to refer or not to refer a dispute for adjudication was a matter for its discretion. By about the end of 1962 the respondent-union made further representation to the State Government and by its order dated August 28, 1963 the Government made a reference of the dispute regarding the said termination of the service of respondent 3 to the Labour Court for adjudication. By its order dated March 22, 1965 the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that there was no industrial dispute, and therefore, the reference was not maintainable. Respondents 1 to 3 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge. An appeal against the said order filed by the appellant-company was dismissed. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the appellant-company s writ petition.

2. Counsel for the appellant-company, in support of the appeal, raised the following points: (1) Was it possible for the respondent-union to validly espouse the cause of respondent 3 when he was not a member at the date when his service was terminated? Even if it was, was there in fact an espousal so as to convert his individual dispute into an industrial dispute? (2) Do the words at any time" in Section 4-K of the Act have any limitations, or can the Government refer a dispute for adjudication after the lapse of about six years, as in this case, after the accrual of the cause of the dispute? (3) In what circumstances can the Government refer such a dispute for adjudication after it has once refused to do so?

3. The definition of industrial dispute in Section 2 (1) of the Act is in the same language as that in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The expression industrial dispute , therefore, must bear the same meaning as it is assigned to that expression in the Central Act. It is now well settled by a long series of decisions that notwithstanding the wide language of the definition in Section 2(k) of the Central Act, the dispute contemplated there is not an individual dispute but one involving a substantial number of workmen. However, a dispute, though originally an individual dispute, may become an industrial dispute if it were to be espoused and made a common cause by workmen as a body or by a considerable section of them. Section 4-K of the Act, therefore, must be held to empower the Government to make a reference of such a dispute only for adjudication. It provides that where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute for adjudication to a labour court or to a tribunal depending upon whether the matter of the industrial dispute falls under one or the other Schedule to the Act.

4. The first question that falls for determination is whether where a dispute is originally an individual dispute but becomes an industrial one as a result of its being espoused by a union or a substantial number of workmen, the concerned w