The jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer to adjudicate on a reference under S.10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entirely dependent on the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute as defined in the Act.

K. Veeraswami, C.JThis appeal by the management is from an order of Palaniswamy, J. The learned Judge quashed an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, and directed him to restore to his file a reference which the State Government had made to him by G.O. Rt. 340, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing, dated February 24, 1968. That reference was made under S.10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and on a joint application by the management of the Vallamalai Estate, Valaparai, and the workmen represented by the Secretary of the Estates' Staffs Union of South India, Coimbatore. As required by the provisions of the Act, the reference arose from a satisfaction of the Government that the persons applying for reference represented the majority of each party. The question that was referred for adjudication was whether the non-employment of one George Vaz (box-maker) was justified; if not, to what relief he was entitled ? The reference also included the computation of the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it could be so computed at all. The workmen claimed that the termination, with effect from July 15, 1966, by the management, of the services of George Vaz, for alleged misconduct, was not at all sustainable. This was denied in the objection statement filed for the management, which asserted the George Vaz was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, but an independent contractor pure and simple, beyond the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. On that ground, the management would have it that there was no industrial dispute to as to afford jurisdiction to the presiding officer to adjudicate the question under reference. Before the presiding officer the workmen contended that the management was estopped from questioning his jurisdiction to adjudicate on the reference as it was one under S.10(2) of the Act and upon a joint application by the management and the union. The other point which the presiding officer formulated was, if the management was not estopped, whether George Vaz was a workman, within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Act, or a contractor as the management would have it. The third point the presiding officer posed for himself was whether if George Vaz was a workman, was the enquiry against him a fair and proper on and whether the termination of his services could be justified. On the first question, the presiding officer held in favour of the management, and on the second question, the presiding officer's view was that George Vaz was not a workman. On that view, he was further of opinion that there was no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended, and, therefore, the presiding officer had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. Palaniswamy, J., however, thought that the management, having joined in the application under S. 10(2), was estopped from raising the contention that George Vaz was not a workman, and that, therefore, no industrial dispute was in existence or apprehended. At the same time, he was inclined to think that it was open to the management to contend before the presiding officer that the person concerned was not a workman. We have some difficulty in appreciating the learned Judge in making the second observation. Anyway, on the view he took, he quashed the award, as we said, and directed fresh disposal in accordance with law.

2. On the question of estoppel, with due respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to concur with him. There is nothing in the statutory provisions or the rules made under the Industrial Disputes Act to justify that view. The Act is intended to make a provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. The Act has defined an industrial dispute, which ought to be one between, among other things, employers and workmen, by the actual dispute should be connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions or labour of