The State Government has the discretion to refer only a part of the industrial dispute to the Tribunal, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the Government to refer the remaining matters in dispute.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the petitioner who is the Secretary of the Sasamusa Workers Union has obtained a rule calling upon the State of Bihar and other respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be issued commanding the State of Bihar to refer "the entire dispute between the petitioner and Sasamusa Sugar Mills, Limited, for being decided by the Industrial Tribunal under Sec.10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act."

2. Cause was shown against the rule by the State of Bihar to whom notice of the rule was given. The other respondents, Nos. 2 and 3, have not entered appearance and contested the rule.

3. The material facts are not controverted. On 28th of August 1949 the Sasamusa Workers Union sent a letter to the Manager of the Sugar Mills in which they set out 15 demands with respect to certain disputed matters like non-implementation of certain awards. On 31st October 1949 further demands were made by the petitioner upon which conciliation proceedings were started at the instance of the Labour Commissioner of Bihar. A settlement was arrived at between the Workers Union and the management with respect to most of the matters in dispute. The remaining points were left for the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the agreement of both the parties. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour accordingly decided the point and the whole settlement was published on 9th of January 1950, in a Government Notification. Two days later the Workers Union served a notice of strike on the factory management setting forth 44 specific demands. On 19th of January 1950 the Labour Officer visited Sasamusa and made a report after making certain enquiries. On 24th January 1950 the Labour Commissioner wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Workers Union requesting him to attend a meeting at Mirganj intimating that the strike will be illegal in view of the fact that conciliation proceedings had already started. Shortly after the Government of Bihar acting under Sec.10, Subsection (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the industrial dispute existing between the managements of certain Sugar Mill Factories in the State of Bihar and their workers as represented by the Union regarding four matters which were specified in Schedule A of the notification.

4. In support of this petition it was argued by Mr. T.K. Prasad, in the first place that the dispute between the management and the Workers Union related to 44 specific items set forth in the notice of strike sent on nth January 1950 and it was not competent for the State of Bihar to refer to Tribunal only the four matters specified in Annexure A of the notification. But there is no material in the present case adduced on behalf of the petitioner that there was industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act with reference to the "44 demands specified in the notice of strike." Learned Counsel was unable to point out that the notice of strike was in fact served upon the management or that reasonable opportunity was given to the latter to comply with the demands made on behalf of the Workers Union. It is true that there is reference to the impending strike in the letter of the Labour Commissioner, dated 24th of January 1950, and also in the letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 22nd of January 1950, printed at pages 24 and 26 of the paper book. But it is not stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of strike was in fact communicated to the management of the factory or that the management was otherwise aware of the demands made on behalf of the Workers Union. It is impossible to hold upon the materials furnished that there was an "industrial dispute" with reference to the "44 demands" within the meaning of Sec.2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It cannot, therefore, be held that the reference made by the State of Bihar in the notification of 6th February 1950 w