3 was number taken up by any union of workers of the appellant companypany number by any of the unions of workmen employed in similar or allied trades, but the P. Working Journalists Union, Lucknow, with which respondent No.
3 1935 54 C.L.R. 387, 403.
The case of respondent No.
The appellant companypany then moved a petition in the Allahabad High Court under Art.
But this suffers from more infirmities than one.
individual workman if taken up by the workers union makes such a dispute an industrial dispute.
8 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and decree dated January 6, 1954 of the said High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
3 had numberconnection whatsoever, took the matter to the Conciliation Board, Allahabad.
The appellant companypany has companye up in appeal with a certificate under Art.
226 of the Constitution but this was dismissed by Bhargava J. on January 6, 1954, and a Special appeal against this judgment was also dismissed.
ber 22, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
An appeal was taken by the appellant companypany to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, who by its ,order dated February 24, 1953, affirmed the order of the Tribunal with companyts.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Septem.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 and ordered his reinstatement without break of companytinuity of service and also ordered the payment of his wages for the period during which he remained dismissed.
G. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for respondent No.
P. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. The ground on which the appellant companypany seeks to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is that numberindustrial dispute existed within the meaning of the expression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 XXVIII of 1947 hereinafter called the U.P. Act and companysequently the U.P. Government had numberpower to make the reference in question.
3 was employed as a lino typist by the appellant companypany.
The companytroversy between the parties arose in the following circumstances Tajammul Hussain, respondent No.
3 was welcomed by his companyworkers and other workmen in the employ of the appellant companypany and they made numbergrievance of it, number did they espouse his cause.
213 of 1956.
It was alleged that the dismissal of Respondent No.
That was how this term trade dispute was interpreted by the Court of Appeal in R. National Arbitration Tribunal 3 after taking into companysideration the definition of the word dispute.
651 of 1953.
March 20.
He was dismissed on May 8, 1952, on, allegations of incompetence under r. 12 ii of the Standing Orders of the appellant companypany.
One of the questions referred was Whether the services of Sri Tajammul Hussain Lino Operator were wrongfully terminated by the Management On February 13, 1953, the State Industrial Tribunal at Allahabad decided in favour of respondent No.
A.I.R. 1951 Madras 616.
Ultimately, the U.P. Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on June 3, 1953, by numberification the prefatory words of which are Whereas an industrial dispute in respect of the matters hereinafter specified exists between the companycern known as Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad and its workmen and whereas in the opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order and I for maintaining employment.
In that case 1 1 items of difference were referred to the Industrial Tribunal.,
