An individual dispute between an employer and an employee is not an industrial dispute unless it is taken up by a trade union or a number of employees.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and concerns the validity of the order dated 7 July 1958, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal). The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd., Kotma Colliery, Kotma, are the petitioners. The chairman of the tribunal is opposite party 1. R.W. Nair and M.K. Mhaskar are respectively opposite parties 2 and 3. The Union of India is opposite party 4. Nair and Mhaskar were the employees of the petitioners, being employed as accounts clerks at Kotma Colliery in the State of Vindhya Pradesh, now forming part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. There were certain allegations of misconduct against them. The petitioners accordingly drew up proceedings against them, and charges were framed. They were given full and ample opportunity to make their respective defences. The investigation of the cases against them was entrusted to Sri Rajagopalaswami. He held enquiries in accordance with the certified standing orders of the companies-petitioners. After full investigation, he found the defences to be untrue. He held that they were guilty of certain misconduct and recommended their dismissal. As, however, an adjudication, to which the petitioners were parties, was pending before the All-India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes), Calcutta, instead of dismissing them forthwith; the petitioners suspended them from service and at the same time made applications to the tribunal under Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , for permission to dismiss them. The said employees also moved the tribunal under Sec.33A of the said Act praying for vacating the order of suspension passed against them on the ground that it was ultra vires and illegal. Meanwhile, Dr. Batheja, one of the members of the tribunal, resigned, and, in consequence, the tribunal was reconstituted by S.R.O. No. 472 dated 25 February 1955. The result was that the applications of the petitioners under Sec.33 and the complaints of Nair and Mhaskar under Sec.33A lapsed. Thereafter, it appears that their case was taken up with the Government of India by Sri R.L. Malviya, organizing secretary, Indian National Trade Union Congress, Vindhya Pradesh Branch, and vice-president of the Indian National Mine Workers Federation, Dhanbad, and conciliation proceedings were held by Sri P.S. Dhamne, conciliation officer, Jabalpur, on 9 December 1955, but the petitioners were not prepared to take part in the conciliation proceedings to reconsider their decision to dismiss these two workmen. Sri Malviya had further communications with the Government of India in his capacity as vice-president of the Indian National Mine Workers Federation and organizing secretary of the Indian National Trade Union Congress, Vindnya Pradesh Branch, and ultimately in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Government of India by notification No, S.R.O. 34, dated 31 December 1955, referred the dispute to the arbitration of Sri P.S. Bindra, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The subject-matter of the dispute, as stated in the schedule to the said order, was as follows:

Alleged wrongful termination of the services of the following workmen and the relief, if any, to which they are entitled: (i) Sri M.K. Mhaskar, ex-accounts clerk, Kotma Colliery.

(ii) Sri R.N. Nair, ex-accounts clerk, Kotma Colliery.

Later, upon the services of Sri P.S. Bindra ceasing to be available, the Government, by S.R.O. No. 1504 dated 22 June 1956, referred the dispute to Sri Matin Ahmed who constituted an industrial tribunal with headquarters at Lucknow. Thereafter, by another notification No. S.R.O. 3507, dated 5 November 1956, the Government further amended the order of reference dated 22 June 1956 by changing the headquarters of Sri Matin Ahmad from Lucknow to Dhanbad. Before this tribunal both parties filed their writ