CHAGLA, C.J.:- A very important question as to the proper construction to be placed upon S.42(2), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, arises on this petition, and the few facts which are necessary for the decision of that question may be stated.

2. The petitioner is the employee of opponent No.3, which is a weaving factory, and in June 1952 opponent No.3 gave notice of a change under S.42(1). Pursuant to that notice, conciliation proceedings were started and the Conciliator reported the failure of conciliation proceedings on 4-12-1952. An application was made by the petitioner and others to Government for a reference under S.73 and the Government declined to make the reference. A notice of change was then given by the petitioner and others on 2-9-1953, under S.42(2). On 29-9-1953, the petitioner sent a statement of the case as required by the Act to the Conciliator and on 2-10-1953, the Conciliator replied that he could not proceed with the conciliation as the notice was not in the prescribed form.

Thereupon the petitioner sent a second notice of change on 2-11-1953. This notice was addressed to the manager of the employers factory and at the foot of the notice it was st