An individual dispute between an employer and an employee is not an industrial dispute and the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute.

( 1 ) THE facts is this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated, with liability limited by guarantee, under the India Companies Act. The company maintains a Club for the benefit of its members at premises No. 33 Chowringhee Road in the town of Calcutta. Respondent 1 Santi Ranjan Somaddar was employed by the petitioner since 1-2-1947 as an assistant bill clerk. It is stated that he frequently absented himself from duty, so much so that during his seven years of employment he was absent for a total of almost three years. It is further stated that other office clerks have from time to time requested the Secretary of the Club to take some steps to find another employee or make some arrangements for the work to be done during the absence of respondent 1, the burden of which fell upon them. On or about 9-6-1954 he absented himself from duty without any leave or authority and continued to absent himself. By letters dated 25-6-1954 and 8-7-1954 the petitioner required respondent 1 to resume his duties but he failed to do so. He also failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for his long and obstinate absence. It appears from the correspondence that at the time of taking leave, ell the information that he gave to the authorities of the Club was a short letter dated 9-6-1954 stating that he had a 'very urgent piece of business. ' It is stated in the affidavit filed by the said respondent that his mother became ill and that is why he had to take leave. It is clear that the authorities concerned did not believe in this excuse, as it was not the first time that respondent 1 had been absenting himself without leave. For example, in January 1954 he had absented himself without any leave whatsoever for ten days. In fact, it appears that he habitually did so, to the great inconvenience of his employers and fellow employees. On or about 14-7-1954 the Secretary of the Club informed respondent 1 that the Committee of the Club had decided in the interest of the Club and its staff to dismiss him from service, with effect from 14-7-1954 for insubordination and for continued and determined unauthorised absence. The Secretary pointed out that the Committee was not satisfied with the excuses shown, for not complying with the orders made by the Club authorities, as also with his past conduct and service. Respondent 1 protested, and it seems that the Government of West Bengal, professing to act in exercise of power conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter Called 'the Act') referred the dispute between the petitioner and the said respondent for adjudication to the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta (hereinafter called 'the tribunal' ). The reference was made by an order dated 2-5-1955 and the dispute referred was as follows:--"whether termination of service of Shree Santo Ranjan Somaddar was justified? -- To what relief is he entitled?"

( 2 ) IT might be mentioned here that the cause of respondent 2 has not been taken up by any trade union or by the general body of workmen employed by the petitioner. In fact, it would appear from the facts stated above, that his fellow workers protested at his continued absence and demanded that the Club should do something in respect of the same, so that their own burden would not be unfairly increased. Respondent 2, the Seventh Industrial Tribunal Calcutta, took up the reference and was proceeding with it. On or about 9-6-1955 the petitioner filed his defence objecting to the jurisdiction of the said respondent. If is alleged that the said respondent is not willing to accede to the petitioner's contention and intends to proceed with the reference and to make the award. This Rule was issued on 14-6-1955 calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued prohibiting the said respondent from entertaining the proceeding and or why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be made quashing the proceeding