JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— This appeal by special leave arises out of an award made by Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh in Reference No. 3/C of 1970 between S. N. Goyal, workman and the management of the Bank of Baroda, by which the industrial dispute raised by the workman complaining about his illegal dismissal from service and seeking reinstatement was rejected holding that in the absence of any demand having been made by the concerned workman on the respondent bank and consequently no industrial dispute having come into existence the Government was not competent to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.

2. S. N. Goyal, workman was a clerk in the Bank of Baroda, B. O. Civil Lines. Jullundur City. A charge-sheet dated 31st July, 1965 was served upon him whereafter an inquiry into charges was held and ultimately the workman was dismissed from service, against which the workman unsuccessfully appealed. The industrial dispute arising out of the dismissal of the workman was espoused by Punjab Bank Workers Union. On the failure recorded by conciliation officer, Government of India made the reference in the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in dismissing Shri S. N. Goyal a clerk of Civil Lines Branch, Jullundur of the Bank was justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?"

3. The Union filed statement of claim. The Bank of Baroda in its written statement raised a preliminary objection that as no demand in respect of Shri S. N. Goyal was made upon the management, there was no industrial dispute in existence and therefore the reference made by the Government under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was incompetent. There was another preliminary objection with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The first preliminary objection found favour with the Industrial Tribunal which upheld the contention that as no demand either oral or in writing was made by the concerned workman before approaching the Conciliation Officer, there was no dispute in existence on the date of the reference and therefore the reference made by the Government was incompetent.

4. Section 2 (k) defines Industrial Dispute as under:

" "industrial dispute" means 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."

5. A bare perusal of the definition would show that where there is a dispute or difference between the parties contemplated by the definition and the dispute or difference is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person there comes into existence an industrial dispute. The Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute would come into existence in any particular, specific or prescribed manner. For coming into existence of an industrial dispute a written demand is not a sine qua non, unless of course in the case of public utility service because S. 22 forbids going on strike without giving a strike notice. The key words in the definition of industrial dispute are dispute or difference What is the connotation of these two words. In Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Ltd., (1960) 1 All ER 274 at p. 279, Lord Denning while examining the definition of expression trade dispute in S. 2 (1) of Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Inquiry) Ordinance of Trinidad observed:

"by definition a trade dispute exists whenever a difference exists and a difference can exist long before the parties became locked in a combat. It is not necessary that they should have come to blows. It is sufficient that they should be sparring for an opening."

6. Thus the term industrial dispute connotes a real and substantial difference having some element of persistency and continuity till resolved and likely if not adjusted to endanger the industrial peace of the undertaking or the commu