( 1 ) THESE three petitions are similar and they raise common questions of law. They relate to the disputes arising out of termination of services of individual workmen by their respective employers who are the petitioners herein.

( 2 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down S. 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Thev have also imnusned the Conciliation proceedings pending before the labour and Conciliation Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT 4 In each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under S. 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial establishments Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops and establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the Appellate Authority under the said Act. After S. 2a was inserted in the Act by the Industrial disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965. (Central Act XXXV of 1965), the commissioner issued a Circular (marked Ext.-III in each of these petitions) in which it was stated that a workman who is removed or dismissed from service by his employer, can get better reliefs under the provisions of the Act than under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. The Circular advised workmen who had preferred appeals under S. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act to consider the desirability of withdrawing such appeals and approaching the Conciliation Officer for taking up the matter under the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT-4 in each of these petitions made an application for withdrawing his respective appeal preferred under S. 39 of the Shops and establishments Act. Thereafter the Commissioner directed the Conciliation officer to take up the conciliation proceedings in respect of disputes between the respective employers and the emplovees relating to their dismissal or removal from service. Accordingly the Conciliation Officer issued to the petitioner and respondent-4 in each of these petitions notices under s. 12 (1) of the Act, read with Rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Mysore) rules, 1957, requiring them to attend the proceeding before him. Feeling aggrieved by such notices, the petitioners have presented these petitions. Mr. Viswanath Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions, advanced the following contentions:" (i) S. 2a of the Act is ultra-vires of the Act; (ii) S. 2a is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; (iii) S. 2a has no application to a dispute arising from discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of services, made prior to 1-12-1965; (iv) The Commissioner should have disposed of the appeals under s. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act; (v) The Commissioner should not have issued the Circular, Ext. III; (vi) The Commissioner had no competence to direct the Conciliation officer to take up conciliation proceedings under S. 12 (1) of the Act; and (vii) The Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to take up conciliation proceedings. "

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate these contentions of Mr Viswanath Rai, it is necessary to set out certain provisions of the Act the long title of the Act reads : "an Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes " the preamble of the Act reads : "whereas it is expedient to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing, it is hereby enacted as follows: " s. 2 of the Act contains definitions of certain words and expressions occurring in the Act. Clause (k) of S. 2 defines '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 emp