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 allege

Click Here to Read the rest of this document