An individual dispute does not constitute an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. A lack of jurisdiction renders subsequent proceedings invalid.

1This is an application for a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash the proceedings in adjudication No. 11 of 1950 on the file of the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and for incidental orders or directions under Art.226 (1) of the Constitution of India.

2The facts are these. The applicant Company are the stockists and distributors of petrol in Ernakulam. In July 1948 a quantity of petrol from their stock was taken out in a lorry belonging to, but without the knowledge of, the Company. A prosecution for theft at the instance of the police ensued. The third respondent was charged with having driven the lorry, and respondents 2 and 4 were charged with having taken the quantity of petrol from out of the companys stock. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 were employees under the company. There were some other accused in the case who were also the companys employees. All the accused were placed under suspension pending the trial. The prosecution ended in the acquittal of all the accused. The company took the other accused back into service, but having regard to the facts disclosed at the enquiry conducted by them as also to the confessions made by respondents 2 and 3, the company were satisfied about their participation in the matter and refused to take back respondents 2, 3 and 4 and discharged them.

3On a complaint made by these respondents that their discharge was unjustified the Government of the State of Travancore-Cochin (5th respondent) made the following order:
L4-8057/50/DD. Whereas an Industrial dispute has arisen between the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Ernakulam, represented by their Terminal Superintendent, Ernakulam, and their workmen viz., Sri. C.P. Sukumara Menon, Poovothil House, Thrikkanarvattom, Ernakulam, Sri. Thekkeveettil Ouseph Xavier, Mariyattuparambu, Pachalam, Ernakulam and Sri Mecheri Thommen Devassy, Choolakkal Parambu, Thrikkanarvattom, Ernakulam, in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order:
And whereas in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary to refer the said Industrial dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) Government hereby direct that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, having its place of sitting at Ernakulam.
 Annexure
Whether the discharge of Sri. C.P. Sukumara Menon, Sri. T.O. Xavier and Sri. M.T. Devassy is justifiable? If not, to what relief are they entitled?
The first respondent accordingly started the aforesaid proceedings No. 11/1950.

4The contentions urged on behalf of the applicant are (1) that there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 and that the dispute is purely individual; and (2) that even such dispute was not between the company and their workmen because by the time the dispute arose respondents 2, 3 and 4 had ceased to be workmen under the company. It is argued that in the absence one of any of these, the reference would be ultra vires the Government and that proceedings started by the Tribunal pursuant thereto would be unauthorised and illegal.

5The respondents replied by saying that though the dispute was individual at the inception it changed its character because the cause was taken up by the Mineral Oil Workers Union at whose instance the Labour Department of the State intervened, secured re-instatement of the rest and the reference for adjudication was the result of the refusal of the company to reinstate these three. It is therefore contended that there is an industrial dispute,, justifying the reference. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are claimed to be workmen as their discharge was after the dispute arose. Respondents raise a further point that the applicant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by having appeared before it and that therefore this application cannot be maintained.

6The first question to be consider