Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Bhargava J. dated 20-1-1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The circumstances in which the petition was filed can be stated shortly.
(2.) On 8-11-1949, one G. E. Arratoon was appointed a general assistant on probation by the Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., the first respondent. On 3-4-1951 Arratoon was dismissed by the respondent company with effect from 1-6-1951. Arratoon had however in the meantime become a member of the appellant Union which took up his case and, on 16-4-1951, applied to the Regional Conciliation Officer for a settlement of the dispute which had arisen in regard to his dismissal. The Regional Conciliation Officer was not able to effect a settlement and he accordingly reported the matter to the State Government which by a notification dated 5-12-1951, referred to the State Industrial Tribunal the following questions: Whether the services of Sri G. E. Arratoon have been wrongly terminated? If so, to what relief, if any, is he entitled?
(3.) Before this Tribunal the respondent company contended that there was no industrial dispute as Arratoon was not a workman but an officer of the Company. On 10-2-1952 the State Industrial Tribunal delivered its award. It held that Arratoon was an officer and not a workman, but that nevertheless there existed an industrial dispute as it was of opinion that it was not necessary that the person whose dismissal was the cause of the dispute between the employer and the workman should himself be a workman. The Tribunal was further of opinion that the dismissal of Arratoon was wrongful, and it direct-ed that he be reinstated with effect from 1-6-1951. From this decision the respondent Company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. That Tribunal delivered its decision on 5-12-1952. It was of opinion that the State Industrial Tribunal had misdirected itself in holding that it was immaterial whether Arratoon was a workman, but as in its opinion Arratoon was a workman it agreed with the State Tribunal that an industrial dispute existed. As however it was further of opinion that Arratoon's dismissal was not wrongful, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the State Industrial Tribunal directing the reinstatement of Arratoon.;