- (1.) THE petitioner and the opposite-parties in both these writ petitions are identical and both of them relate to the same subject-matter and have, therefore, been heard together. Both the petitions were filed by the Newspapers Limited, Allahabad, alleging that opposite party no. 3, Tejammul Husain, who was employed in the petitioner's company as a Lino operator, was in the interest of maintaining discipline among the workers who had made complaints against him, dismissed by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 12 (ii) of the standing orders of the workers of the petitioner's company. This order of dismissal was passed on 8-5-1952. Thereupon, a representation was made regarding the propriety of this order of dismissal to the regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, by the U. P. Working Journalists' Union, Lucknow, through one R. K. Sharma who claimed to be its President though Tajammul Husain was not a member of the Union and the Union had nothing to do with the employees of the petitioner. The Regional Conciliation Board took up the matter on this representation but no settlement was arrived at and consequently the Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the State government. Thereupon the State Government issued a notification on 3-1-1953 referring the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. , Allahabad, specifying the matters of dispute in that notification. The Industrial Tribunal, U. P. , Allahabad, heard the parties and gave its decision on 13-2-1953. During the hearing of the dispute by the Industrial Tribunal, Tajammul Husain was represented by R. K. Sharma on the basis of a written authority from Tajammul Husain and the objection of the petitioners that R. K. Sharma had no right to represent Tajammul Husain was overruled. The petitioners went up in appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India from the order of the U. P. Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India gave its decision on 24-7-1953. Before this decision could be given by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and while the proceedings were pending before it, the petitioner moved the writ application No. 556 of 1953, challenging the validity of the proceedings in the U. P. Industrial Tribunal and asking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to remove the proceedings that were pending in the Labour Appellate Tribunal of india, and for quashing the order made by the U. P. Industrial Tribunal. The second Writ Application No. 651 of 1953 was moved subsequently after the judgment of the labour Appellate Tribunal of India had been given. The facts given in support of this petition were also the same but the prayer had to be altered inasmuch as a writ of certiorari was asked for to quash the decision given by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention in support of these petitions which need be considered are only four in number. The first contention is that Tajammul Husain was not a workman at all at the time when the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal and, since Tajammul husain was not a workman, there was no industrial dispute which could be referred, so that the reference was incompetent.
(3.) THE second contention is that there was no industrial dispute at all which could be referred, as a dispute between an employer and an individual workman is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of that word, as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;