The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State concerned, and the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the manufacture and production of herbo-mineral products, and having its registered office at the Residency Road, Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent is a Medical Representative of the petitioner for canvassing orders and promoting sales of its products in the State of Kerala, and in the District of South Kanara in the State of Mysore. The 3rd Respondent was transferred to Bangalore by Ext. P1 dated 10121968, with effect from 10-1-69. He refused to join at the said station; whereupon Ext. P2 notice dated 1311969 was issued to him to show cause against suitable action. By Ext. P3 dated 21-1-1969, while informing him that there was no justification for his refusal to proceed to Bangalore, he was given one more chance to join at the place. Meanwhile, the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum, by notice dated 711969 informed the petitioner of his intention to commence conciliation proceed lugs is respect of the order of transfer and asked the petitioner to be present for a conference to be held on 18 11969. It was stated that the 3rd Respondent's cause had been taken up by the 4th Respondent, the Kerala Medical Representatives' Association. By its reply dated 131 1969 (copy Ext. P4), the petitioner stated that the Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate the conciliation "proceedings and that the 3rd Respondent was not a'workman'. Thereafter, the Ist Respondent by Ext. P5 order dated 15-4-1970 referred the question of termination of service of the 3rd Respondent to the Labour Court, Quilon under S.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner seeks to quash this order.

2. The petitioner's Counsel contended that the petitioner has no place of business, nor any office in the Kerala State, and that the 3rd Respondent was merely a salesman or a sort of canvassing agent to procure and promote sales of the petitioners' products, that the control over the 3rd Respondent and the disbursement of his salary were all from the Office at Hyderabad; and even the orders of transfer to Bangalore and the threatened termination of service were issued from Hyderabad. In the circumstances, it was said that "the appropriate Government", under S.2 (a) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act to refer the dispute for adjudication was not the Kerala Government, but if at all, only the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In addition to this it was said that the 3rd Respondent was not a'workman'. A point was raised that the dispute in question was only an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute. But this was not pressed in view of the provisions of S.2-A of the Act.

3. S.2(a) defines "appropriate Government" as follows: "2 (a) "appropriate Government" means

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or the Central Government;

and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute the State Government".

The expression "appropriate Government" occurs further in S.9-A and 9-B and 10 of the Act. S.10(1)(c) reads:

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.

1. Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing (a) (b)

(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to> the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication."

4. It seems reasonable, and fairly clear, that there can be only one Government, which can be regarded as the "appropriate Government" for the purpose of making a reference under S.10(1)(c). The consequences of holding that more than one Government can refer the same industrial dispute for adjudication appear to us to be startling. But in a case where a concern is shown to be carrying on business within the frontiers of more than one State, or where more than one State is put forward as the "appro