A Federation of Trade Unions, being a Trade Union within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is competent to espouse the cause of workmen, particularly when the particular Trade Union, being an affiliated union, is also involved.

The petitioner No. 1 is a Federation of Trade Union recognised under Rule 40 of the U. P. Industrial Dis putes Rules, 1957. The petitioner No. 2 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The employees of the Respondent No. 2 are members of the said Union. The petitioner No. 2 is one of the Constituent of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 espoused the cause of two workmen namely Sri Ram Raj Sinha and Sri Jogendra Nath Upadhyay, whose services were terminated, out of which two references were made by the State Government. The petitioner No. 1 espoused the cause of the workman Sri Jogendra Nath Upadhyaya relating to his claim of wages for the period 16-3-1981 till 19-3- 1981. Out of the said three references Adjudication Case Nos. 115/81, 145/81 and 44 of 1982 were registered in the Labour Court, Allahabad. A question had been raised as to the competence of the petitioner No. 1 to espouse the cause of the said workmen, who were not members of the petitioner No. 1, but members of petitioner No. 2, who is member of the petitioner No. 1. By an order dated 21-12- 1982 the Labour Court had held that the petitioner No. 1 was not competent to espouse the cause of the said workmen and, therefore, the reference is bad. It is against this order, the present writ peti tion has been moved.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. P. Agarwal, contends that the im pugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as the federation is also a Trade Union. Therefore, there is no bar in espousing the cause of members of its affiliated units. According to him the objection is purely technical in nature in respect of two of the disputes which are against the order of termination in as much as in those two cases individual workman can have also maintained the dispute by reason of Sec tion 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act and the Central Act respectively ). Therefore, it is immaterial as to who has espoused the cause. He contends further that the proce dure or mode of the cause of a workman by the Union has not been provided either in the two Acts or in the Rules framed there under. In view of Section 2-A the position has altogether changed.

3. Sri V. R. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand contends that unless the workman is a member of a particular Trade Union, his cause cannot be espoused by such Trade Union. Since the workman are not member of the Federation of the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 is incompetent in espousing the cause of the workmen. In support of his contention he refers to the definition of the trade Union as defined in Section 2 (qq) of the Central Act, defining "trade Union means a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. He further refers to Section 2 (h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926, which by defining the "trade Union ex presses that the Trade Union includes any federation of two or more Trade Unions. He further contends relying on the rule for representation that the question of com petence of a Union has to be construed with reference to the rule of repre sentation. He relies on various decisions, to which we shall refer shortly, in support of his contention.

4. Now the reference is made under Section 4-K of the U. P. Act and Section 10 of the Central Act. Section 10 of the Central Act which is almost pan materia identical to Section 4-K of the U. P. Act, has prescribed that where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any Industrial dispute exist or apprehended, it may, at anytime, by order in writing, refer the dispute to, (a) the Board, (b) Court of enquiry, (c) the Labour Court, and (d) the Tribunal. Therefore, it is the satisfaction of the Government for the purposes of for mation of opinion that an Industrial dis pute exist or is apprehended. So far as the order of dismissal is concerned is also an Industrial dispute, as defined in Se