An industrial dispute, as defined in Sec. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must involve a dispute between a body of employees and the management, and not merely an individual dispute between a single workman and the management.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the petitioner, namely, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had obtained a writ from this High Court on 14-6-1951, prohibiting the Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad from proceedings with Reference No. 12 of 1951 for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and Nagendra Nath Bhattacharya who had been dismissed from the Companys service on 27-4-1949. The reference was made to the Tribunal under Sec.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act No. 14 of 1947) by the notification dated 3-5-1951. After the High Court had issued the rule the Government of India cancelled the order of reference by the notification dated 9-7-4951. On the same date the Government of India passed another order to the following effect:

"Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the New India "Assurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta and the Bihar Provincial Insurance Employees Association, Patna, in the matter of the termination of services of Sri Nagendranath Bhattacharya a workman at the Patna Branch of the New India Assurance Company.

And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Act of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad constituted under Section 7 of the Act".

Thereafter the petitioner instituted the present proceedings in the High Court for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up the record of the proceedings pending before the tribunal and for quashing the same on the ground that there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Government of India to make the reference.

2. Cause was shown against the rule by the Advocate General on behalf of the Government Industrial Tribunal and by Mr. B. C. Ghosh on behalf of the dismissed employee Nagendra Nath Bhattacharya and on behalf of the Bihar Provincial Insurance Employees Association,

3. In support of the rule Mr. Baldeva Sahay argued in the first place that there is no industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec.2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the Government of India had no jurisdiction to make a reference under Sec.10(1) and proceedings pending before the Tribunal at Dhanbad were illegal and ought to be quashed. The argument of the learned Counsel is that in order to constitute an industrial dispute there must be a dispute or difference between the employer and a body of workmen in the collective sense and that the dispute must be connected with the employment or terms of the employment or with conditions of labour of any person. It was submitted by the learned counsel that dispute between a single workman and the management of the Company was merely an individual dispute concerned with the terms of the employment or the terms of dismissal of a solitary workman, that it was not in its nature or quality an industrial dispute contemplated by the Act. The question is a matter of construction and depends upon the language of Clause 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Clause 2(k) defines an industrial dispute to mean

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 employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.

On behalf of the respondents Mr. B. C. Ghosh referred to the General Clauses Act and contended that under Sec.13 of that Act "words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa" unless there was anything repugnant in the subject or context. It was argued by Mr. B. C. Ghosh that the word employee in Sec.2(k) of the industrial Disputes Act must be construed so as to include a dispute between the management and a solitary workman whose terms o