Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. In this intra-Court appeal, the defensibility of the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7585/2007 is called in question.

2. The Appellant - writ Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour, whereby the Central Government has constituted a National Industrial Tribunal (tribunal for short) as enshrined under Section 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') and referred the dispute to the tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised by more than 200 shop managers of the Appellant-company represented by All India Bata Shop Managers Union, the Respondent No. 2 herein, on many a ground.

3. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge adverted to a number of facets and came to hold that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in FDC Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. 2007 (1) CLR 706 does not lay down the correct exposition of law and eventually expressed the view that the constitution of the tribunal is valid and there has been no illegal exercise of jurisdiction. It is apt to note that the learned Single Judge felt that the other contentions pertaining to the status of the employees and the other aspects are to be dealt with by the tribunal while answering the reference.

4. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel, assailing the legal substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has raised the following contentions:

(a) The learned Single Judge should have followed the principles of judicial discipline and referred the matter to a larger Bench when he did not agree with the view expressed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in FDC Ltd. (supra) and should not have proceeded to state that there has been incorrect exposition of law in the earlier decision. That apart, the law laid down in FDC Ltd. (supra) has correctly interpreted Section 7B of the Act.

(b) The interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on Section 7B of the Act is erroneous as the Central Government could not have taken recourse to the said provision to constitute a tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute of the present nature as none of the conditions engrafted under the said provision are satisfied in the case at hand. The intent behind Section 7B of the Act is not to decide individual disputes of a workman/workmen but the fundamental purpose of constitution of a tribunal is to decide cases of national importance or such nature where establishments in different States are likely to be interested or affected by the disputes, such as pay scales of workers, general service or working conditions, wage disputes, bonus, etc.

(c) The learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error by expressing the view in certain paragraphs of the decision that their cannot be judicial scrutiny to decide the validity of the reference made by the Government under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the power of judicial review can be invoked when the reference is made without the authority of law or beyond jurisdiction or when the industrial dispute really does not survive for reference.

5. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, in oppugnation to the aforesaid pronouncements, has propounded the following submissions:

(i) The order of constitution of a tribunal by the Central Government under Section 7B of the Act is absolutely justified inasmuch as similar disputes exist in several States where the regional offices and retail shoe stores of the Appellant company are located and the said stores and offices would constitute separate industrial establishments as envisaged under Section 7B of the Act.

(ii) The industrial peace and harmony is the quintessence of the industrial jurisprudence and