- (1.) By notification No. III/DI-8o23/62L and E-5061 dated the 20th July, 1962, the State of Bihar referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947): "Whether the termination of services/dismissal of Shri Bhagawati Saran Tiwari is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on his previous post in the factory and/or compensated?" It was argued on behalf of the management before the Labour Court that the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the reference. This argument was overruled by the Labour Court by its order dated the 7th February, 1963 and it was held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the reference.
(2.) The petitioner has now obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the Labour Court from proceeding with the hearing of the reference.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel put forward the argument that Sri Bhagwati Saran Tiwari was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is to the following effect: " 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to- do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.....";