JUDGMENT

C.S.P. Singh, J. - A learned Single Judge has on account of the conflict between the decisions given in the case of Kanpur Mazdoor Congress v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, A.I.R. 1955 N. U. C. 3296 and Industrial Employees Union v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1960 All 738 has referred the following question to a larger Bench :-

"Whether a writ petition on behalf of a Union which was a party before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is maintainable without impleading the workmen concerned ?

2. We, however, think that in as much as the learned Single Judge desired a decision of a Bench only in order to resolve the conflict between the two Single Judge decisions, the appropriate question that arises is :

"Whether a writ petition on behalf of a Union which was a party before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal was maintainable ?"

The question referred is reformed accordingly.

3. It is now necessary to refer to such facts as are necessary for the decision of the present reference. The Indian Press Mazdoor Union is a registered Trade Union and represents inter alia the workmen of the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., Allahabad. A dispute arose between the workmen and the Indian Press regarding retrenchment of some employees.

4. Conciliation proceedings having failed, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Allahabad by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Union had espoused the cause of the workmen during the dispute and also before the Conciliation Officer. The Union represented the workmen in the dispute before the Labour Court, and thereafter the Union, representing the workmen of the Indian Press contested the matter, and subsequently, an award was given by the Labour Court. The Union being dissatisfied with the award filed Civil Misc. Writ .Petition No. 75 of 1970. A preliminary objection was taken by the counsel for the Indian Press (Private) Ltd. that the petition by the Union was not maintainable and reliance was placed on the decision of Industrial Employees Union v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1960 All. 738. in which a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that a Union had no, right to present a petition under Art. 226, on behalf of discharged workmen, in as much as in a writ petition only an individual or a corporation whose rights are affected can seek relief. The petitioner on the other hand relied upon the decision in Kanpur Mazdoor Congress v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. 3296, where another learned Single judge had held that in as much as an industrial dispute is a dispute between the workmen in general and one or more employers, and trade unions are parties before Industrial Tribunals, they were directly affected by awards given in the dispute and as such are entitled to file petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It appears. that this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge deciding the case of Industrial Employees Union A.I.R. 1960 All. 738, and as such the subsequent decision in Industrial Employees Union v. State of U. P. and others, A.I.R. 1960 All 738 can he said to be one which is per incuriam.

5. Before we advert to the large number of authorities cited by the parties, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and the Rules by virtue of which the union steps into a dispute between the workmen and its employers.

6. Under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, only an industrial dispute can be referred to a Labour Court, under Section 4-K of the Act. An industrial dispute' has been defined as being one which is a dispute or difference between the employers and workmen connected with employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment or with the ,condition of the labour of any person. There is a catena of decisions which firmly establish that it is only a collective dispute that can be referred for adjudication, and an individual dispute