Kapur, J.-The ground on which the appellant company seeks to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is that no industrial dispute existed within the meaning of the expression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XXVIII of 1947) (hereinafter called the U. P. Act) and consequently the U. P. Government had no power to make the reference in question. “Industrial Dispute” is defined in section 2 of the U.P. Act as having the same meaning assigned to it as in section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter termed the Central Act). There this expression has been defined in section 2 (k)to mean:

“any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person”.

The controversy between the parties arose in the following circumstances:

Tajammul Hussain, respondent No. 3 was employed as a linotypist by the appellant company. He was dismissed on May 8, 1952, on allegations of incompetence under rule 12 (ii) of the Standing Orders of the appellant company. It was alleged that the dismissal of respondent No. 3 was welcomed by his co-workers and other workmen in the employ of the appellant company and they made no grievance of it, nor did they espouse his cause.

The case of respondent No. 3 was not taken up by any union of workers of the appellant company nor by any of the unions of workmen employed in similar or allied trades, but the U.P. Working Journalists’ Union, Lucknow, with which respondent No. 3 had no connection whatsoever, took the matter to the Conciliation Board, Allahabad. Ultimately, the U.P. Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on June 3, 1953, by notification, the prefatory words of which are:

“Whereas an industrial dispute in respect of the matters hereinafter specified exists between the concern known as Newspapers, Limited, Allahabad and its workmen; and whereas in the opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order and for maintaining employment .........”

One of the questions referred was:

“Whether the services of Sri Tajammul Hussain, Lino Operator, were wrongfully terminated by the Management.............”

On February 13, 1953, the State Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and ordered his reinstatement “without break of continuity of service” and also ordered the payment of his wages for the period during which he “remained dismissed”. An appeal was taken by the appellant company to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, who by its order, dated February 24, 1953, affirmed the order of the Tribunal with costs. The appellant company then moved a petition in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but this was dismissed by Bhargava, J., on January 6, 1954 and a Special Appeal against this judgment was also dismissed. The appellant company has come up in appeal with a certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

The controversy which arises in this case is whether a dispute between an employer and a single workman falls within the definition of “industrial dispute” as used in the U.P. Act. In order to resolve this controversy, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the U.P. Act and the relevant rules made thereunder. The preamble of the Act runs:

“.... to provide for powers to prevent strikes and lock-outs, and for the settlement of industrial disputes and other incidental matters.”

Section 3 of the Act confers certain powers on the State Government for the purpose of prevention of strikes, lock-outs, etc. The portion of this section relevant for the purpose of this appeal reads as follows:

“If in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient so to do for essential the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services securing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document