( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of Bhargava J. dated 20-1-1955, dismissing a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The circumstances in which the petition was filed can be stated shortly.

( 2 ) ON 8-11-1949, one G. E. Arratoon was appointed a general assistant on probation by the upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. , the first respondent. On 3-4-1951 Arratoon was dismissed by the respondent company with effect from 1-6-1951. Arratoon had however in the meantime become a member of the appellant Union which took up his case and, on 16-4-1951, applied to the Regional Conciliation Officer for a settlement of the dispute which had arisen in regard to his dismissal. The Regional Conciliation Officer was not able to effect a settlement and he accordingly reported the matter to the State Government which by a notification dated 5-12-1951, referred to the State Industrial Tribunal the following questions: whether the services of Sri G. E. Arratoon have been wrongly terminated? If so, to what relief, if any, is he entitled?

( 3 ) BEFORE this Tribunal the respondent company contended that there was no industrial dispute as Arratoon was not a workman but an officer of the Company. On 10-2-1952 the State industrial Tribunal delivered its award. It held that Arratoon was an officer and not a workman, but that nevertheless there existed an industrial dispute as it was of opinion that it was not necessary that the person whose dismissal was the cause of the dispute between the employer and the workman should himself be a workman. The Tribunal was further of opinion that the dismissal of Arratoon was wrongful, and it direct-ed that he be reinstated with effect from 1-6-1951. From this decision the respondent Company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. That Tribunal delivered its decision on 5-12-1952. It was of opinion that the State Industrial tribunal had misdirected itself in holding that it was immaterial whether Arratoon was a workman, but as in its opinion Arratoon was a workman it agreed with the State Tribunal that an industrial dispute existed. As however it was further of opinion that Arratoons dismissal was not wrongful, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the State Industrial Tribunal directing the reinstatement of Arratoon.

( 4 ) THE appellant Union then filed the petition out of which this appeal arises. It challenged the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on two grounds. The first contention was that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law and was therefore incompetent, the second contention was that, if the appeal were competent, the questions whether Arratoon was a workman and whether his dismissal was wrongful were questions of fact, and consequently outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Judge rejected these submissions and dismissed the petition. The same arguments have been advanced in this Court. Mr. K. O. Saxena, who appears for the appellant Union, does not deny that the question whether an Industrial dispute existed is a question of law, but what he says is that it was not a substantial question of law, because at the time when the appeal was filed there was no doubt what the law was. We do not think this argument carries the matter very far. When the State Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award the view then prevailing was that a dispute would be an industrial dispute if the subject matter of the dispute was the dismissal of a person in the service of the employers otherwise than as a workman. That view had however been overruled by a Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in a case decided by it after the companys appeal from the decision of the State Industrial Tribunal had been filed but before that appeal was heard. In these circumstances it is clear that in the view of the Labour Appellate Tribunal the State tribunal had committed a serious error of law. Mr. Saxena however, argues that th