Kumarayya, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order of the Labour Court, gantur, in Industrial Dispute Nos. 5 of 1956, 17 of 1964 27 of 1964 and 33 of 1964 dated 29th May 1995 and for the further directions as the circumstances of the case may warrant.
(2.) WHO facts leading of this petition are these who petitioner - company, an industrial under taking carries in business of purchase of cotton manufacture and sale of farm, It has on its employment about 800 workers It is the case of the petitioner that there is a labour union concerned there with known as Tripathi Cotton mills National Labour Union '' duly registered in accordance with the provision of the Indian Trade Union Act of 1926, of which most of the workers are the members that there is no other union of workers for this industrial establishment and the most of the settlements with the management were entered into regarding various matter such as sales of wages etc.; through this union. While so certain workers in the establishment absented themselves for a long period and consequently, they lost their lion on their jobs as per the standing orders Likewise the services of certain other were terminated by the management as a result of enquiry into some serious charges against them The case of these workers was not caused either by the said union or a substantial number of workman Another union grew up meanwhile under the name and style of '' Chittoor District cotton Mills Employees ' Union '' It was registered on 24 October 1988. It was not the union specially concerned with the petitioner 's company. It was in fact a general union of workers in Chittor district. Thus it was said that it is an outside union having nothing to do with petitioner - under taking or its workers who person who lost their jobs approached the officer bearers of this union to take up their cause. The union accordingly welcome them and made a demand on their behalf, consequent on its representation, conciliation proceeding stated but they preved abortive. The Government then made reference of the various dispute under Section 10(i)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act (Central Act 14 of 1947) on 4 February 1984; 8 June 1984, 2 September 1964 and 28 November 1986 which were numbered by the labour court, Guntur as Industrial Dispute Nos. 5 of 1964, 17 of 1964 27 of 1964, and 33 of 1964. The management, which took part in the consolation proceeding earlier, questioned the validity of reference on the ground that the subject matter of reference did not fall within the definition of ''industrial dispute '' Then they moved this Court by with petition Nos 580 of 1964 and 1337 of 1964 of issuance of write in the nature of a writ prohibition restraining the labour court form j proceeding further in pursuance of the references date 4 February as Industrial Dispute Nos. 5 of 1986 and 17 of 1984 on the file of the labour court to main point raised was that the union that supported the cause of the workman was an outside union of which sizable number of workman of this establishment were not member; nor did a substantial number of workers make common cause with the said workman. The workman challenged the truth of either assertion. They averred that for the petitioner 's establishment there was no other cotton mill that had goes into production in Chittor district that the workers of the petitioner establishment are the member of that union, that that union has the members of that union, that It is not therefore true to say that a substantial majority of the workman of the petitioner 's industrial undertaking did not take up their cause of that the dispute was in controversy and could not be determined without detailed inquiry into questions of fact which could, be legitimately some into by the labour court the petitioner deemed it best best not to be press their writ petitions which were accordingly dismissed on 20 October 1964. There were four separate references before the labour court Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1964 was concerned with 11 workman Industrial Dispute No. 17 of 1964 related to 14 persons and Industrial Dispute No. 83 of 1964 was with regard to only 1 workman industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1984 by the term of reference does not disclose how many workman were involved therein. The case of the respondents, however is that it referred to as many as about 300 workman. On the objection of the management as to the jurisdiction, the labour court entered into an inquiry as to the nature of dispute i.e. whether it is an industrial dispute, witnesses were called to testify to the contention raised. It was clear to the labour court that what was in dispute was whether the cause of the aggrieved workman was espoused by a representative union of the workers of that establishment or at any rate by a substantial or appreciable number of workers thereof. In fact the labour court question whether the subject -matter of the reference in not an industrial dispute as it was not sponsored by the representative union of the workers or by a substantial or appreciable number of workers of the establishment. This was essential a question of fact to be more precise, if the inferential aspect is taken into account it is a mixed question of law and fact. But the labour court did not its order give its finding as to how many workers of the establishment were the members of the union which has espoused the cause of the respondent and how many have taken part in passing the resolution. In its approach to the problem the labour court misapprehended the true scope of the problem. Without be arise in mind that the facts essential for determination of the question have to be first found, it observed thus: at any rate it cannot be said on say account that the reference made is not an industrial dispute applying any standard either on the question of fact or on the question of law. Moreover evidence has been recorded in part and it will be easy to recorded the remaining evidence else and an award on the issued framed by the Government can be submitted in a short time. With these observation it held that the labour court has jurisdiction to proceed further with the references. The petitioner as a result, as come once again to this Court, this time requesting the Court few issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the said order of the labour court and for further direction. It is alleged in this petition that the labour court Without properly going into the merit of the contention and applying its mind to the factual aspect of the matter rejected the preliminary objection as to jurisdiction moved by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. In the counter filed by the respondent, it was stated that as many as 300 workman are directly concerned with the references; that it must therefore be necessarily an industrial dispute, that the labour court after recording evidence held that it was an industrial dispute and that that being a question of fact any error in relation there to cannot be corrected in the exercise of writ jurisdiction Even otherwise there has been no error either of law or of jurisdiction which may warrant interference by this Court.
(3.) THE main point for consideration is whether the reference is incompetent on the ground that the dispute referred to is got an industrial dispute. What then is an industrial dispute?;