The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to the instant case and the conciliation proceedings instituted before the first respondent at the instance of second respondent, do not, for the reasons stated in this judgment suffer from want of the authority on the part of the first respondent. The second respondent has the right to agitate this question only under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Shops Act has no application to the instant case.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by M/s. Brindavan Hotel under the following circumstances :- The Hotel management terminated the services of certain employees on the ground that their services were not required. The Conciliation Officer, Hyderabad City, is the first respondent and the President of Brindavan Hotel Mazdoor Sangh is the second respondent. The Workers Union raised the dispute in regard to the termination of the services of these employees. At the instance of the Union the Conciliation Officer, first respondent, issued under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 notice to the Hotel management for bringing about conciliation of the dispute between the parties if it could be brought about. The Hotel management thereupon filed this petition in which they challenge the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to enter upon conciliation proceedings in this case.

( 2 ) MR. V. Jagannadha Rao, who appears for the Hotel management, has contended before us that the Hotel management and its employees are governed by Andhra Pradesh shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and that therefore the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable. In support of his contention he has argued that the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Shops Act for the sake of brevity) being a special enactment would prevail over the Industrial Disputes Act which is a general Act. He has also argued that the shops Act which is a State Legislature will prevail over the Industrial Disputes Act which is a Central Legislation because the State Legislature received the assent of the President under Clause (2) of Article. 254 of the Constitution. According to him both these Acts occupy the same field.

( 3 ) IN order to examine the contentions which Mr. Jagannadha Rao, has raised before us it is necessary to examine certain provisions of those Acts. Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines industrial dispute in the following terms:- " "industrial Dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, 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;" Section 2 (j) defines industry in the following terms :- " Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling Order. employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. " Section 2 (s) defines workman in the following terms :-" Workman means any person (including apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute. "it is not necessary to reproduce the remaining part of the definition of workman because it excludes certain kinds of persons from the definition of workman.

( 4 ) IN Workmen v. M/s. Dharampal (AIR 1966 SC 182) Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act was considered by the Supreme Court. While construing the ambit of Section 2 (k) the Supreme Court laid down that, when literally construed, this definition might include within its scope a dispute between a single workman and his employer because the plural, in the context, would include the singular. However, having regard to the broad policy underlying the Act and in order to safeguard the interests of the working class in this country the Supreme Court observed that the majority of Industrial Tribunals and the Supreme Court itself were inclined to take the view that in spite of th