Veeraswami, J.

This appeal raises an important point of industrial law, namely, whether a labour court, to which a valid reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication had been made, ceases to have jurisdiction to proceed to deal with it by reason of the fact that a majority of the workers, who had collectively sponsored the cause of a workman and raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety of the termination of his services, had subsequently, and pending adjudication of that dispute, retracted and withdrawn their support. The labour court, by is preliminary award dated 25 April, 1958 answered the question in the negative. On a petition filed by the management under Art. 226 of the Constitution, Balakrishna Ayyar, J., by his order dated 7 April, 1959, took a contrary view holding that the dispute referred to the labour court lost its character as an industrial dispute and was no longer such, and, therefore, the labour court would have no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. Accordingly the learned Judge issued a rule to that effect. This appeal is directed against that order.

By his order dated 12 July 1957, the managing editor of the "Hindu" terminated the services of R. Narasimhan with effect from 14 July, 1957. He was then employed as a sub-editor in the concern. The termination of services was preceded by a notice from the chief editor on 9 July, 1957 to Narasimhan to show cause against it, and the explanation of the latter dated 11 July, 1957. The ground for terminating the services of Narasimhan was a finding by the managing editor that he (Narasimhan) had committed a gross mistake in editing a certain report from Salem dated 23 June, 1957. The mistake was this. The report stated that a member of a certain political party in Salem was stabbed on 21 June, 1957, and that the injured man was admitted in a hospital and later discharged. Narasimhan edited this report and published it in the "Hindu" dated 24 June, 1957 as an incident in which the man concerned died of stab injuries on 21 June, 1957. The managing editor rejected Narasimhan's plea that he was being victimized for his trade union activities. On 13 July, 1957 some of the working journalists of the "Hindu, " who belonged to the Madras Union of Journalists, resolved to go on a strike with effect from the following day and remain on strike till the order terminating the services of Narasimhan was suspended and the matter was reconsidered. The same day the executive committee of the Madras Union of Journalists also passed a resolution extending their support to the stand taken by the working journalists of the "Hindu" and called upon all other newspaper employees in the State, and elsewhere, do rally behind the employees of the "Hindu." The strike however, did not actually materialize on 14 July, 1957, as, evidently, in the meantime, conciliation proceedings had started which eventually brought no result. In view of the conciliation proceedings, the Madras Union of Journalists wrote to the management of the "Hindu" on 14 July, 1957 that they were calling off the strike. Conciliation having failed, the State Government made an order on 17 July, 1957 referring to the labour court the following question for adjudication :"whether the termination of services of Sri R. Narasimhan, sub-editor, is justified and to what relief he is entitled

The order of reference contained two mistakes :

(1) that it made no reference to the provisions of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, and

(2) that it assumed Narasimhan to be a workman within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

On 20 September 1957, the Government passed another order amending their earlier order rectifying the two mistakes. When on 11 November, 1957 the matter came up before the labour court, it was agreed on all heads that the reference of the dispute for adjudication should be deemed to have been made on 20 September