The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute becomes an industrial dispute when the cause of the workmen is sponsored by a trade union of which they were members before the reference was made, and it is not necessary for the dispute to be originated by a substantial section of the workmen or a trade union, or to be taken up by them from the very inception, for it to become an industrial dispute.

JUDGMENT :

M.U. Isaac, J.—This writ petition has been filed to quash an award Ext. P-6 dated 28-11-1969 passed by the second respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in I.D. No. 41 of 1967. The petitioner is the proprietor of a textile shop by name Vimala Stores, Thodupuzha. In a part of the building wherein he is carrying on the said business, there are a number of tailors engaged in making clothes. According to the petitioner, all of them were engaged by one Vasu Pillai who takes orders from the public. The petitioner is also dealing in ready-made clothes ; and admittedly he used to give orders for making clothes to the above tailors through Vasu Pillai. By April, 1967, these tailors and the persons working under them claimed to be workmen of the petitioner ; and they started an agitation to get their demands recognised by the petitioner, with the result the petitioner was obliged to close his shop for some days. At that time, one K. Y. George, who styled himself as the Convenor of the Action Council of the Vimala Tailors' Union, Thodupuzha, issued a registered notice Ext. P-l, dated 14-4-1967, to the petitioner making certain demands on behalf of the said workers. This was followed by a notice from the local Labour Officer, calling upon the petitioner to make returns in respect of the said workers under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The petitioner replied stating that he had nothing to do with those persons. In the meanwhile the Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union, who is the first respondent in this O.P,, was formed ; and the cause of the workers was taken up by that union. On the basis of the report of the Labour Commissioner, the State Government passed an order Ext. P-2 dated 3-8-1967 referring two issues for the adjudication of the second respondent. They are (1) denial of employment to 12 persons mentioned therein; and (2) whether the lock-out was justified, and in either case to what relief the workmen were entitled to.

2. The first respondent submitted a detailed statement regarding the claim of the workers. It contended that the petitioner has in all 18 workmen under him, that he locked out his establishment when they made certain demands against him, that he influenced 6 of the workmen to withdraw the demands, and that wrongfully denied employment to the remaining 12 workmen, whose names are mentioned in the order of reference. They accordingly claimed to be reinstated with back wages-The period of the alleged lock-out was from April, 1967 to 1-8-1967. The petitioner denied con-ducting of any tailoring establishment, and contended that none of the said workers was his employee and that there was no scope for any lock-out. The petitioner raised a further contention that the reference was incompetent as the union which took up the cause of the workers was one which was formed subsequent to the dispute.

3. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, four of the workmen filed statements before the Tribunal stating that the alleged dispute was one falsely raised for political reasons and that they were neither interested in the matter nor entitled to get any relief. A similar statement was filed by another workman also, which the Tribunal seems to have failed to notice. It also failed to consider the question of the competence of the reference. It held that there was employer-employee relation between the petitioner and the twelve workmen; and he passed an award in favour of eight of the workmen directing the petitioner to give them compensation at the rate of one week's wages for every completed year of service. The quantum of wages and the period of service were fixed on the basis of a statement filed by the second respondent. The second issue relating to the alleged lock-out was found in favour of the petitioner.

4. Two contentions were raised by counsel for the petitioner against the attainability of the award. One is that the reference is incompetent for the r