Iqbal Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, dated March 4, 1975 (Annexure P. 9) negativing the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner in two references No. 22 and 24 of 1974 (Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 respectively), disposed of through this common order, is impugned. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of these two references. These prayers are made on the basis of the following facts.
(2.) The petitioner which is a private limited company, engaged in the manufacture of pre -stressed concrete cement poles, employed workman respondent No. 2, Partap Singh, as a fitter and retrenched his services on July 4, 1973, as the petitioner was of the view that he was a surplus hand and was not needed by the company's establishment. He was offered the retrenchment compensation namely, one month's notice pay and gratuity at the rate of 15 days for every completed year of service but he refused to accept the same. He, however, accepted a sum of Rs. 324.20 sent to him through money order on the above said account. Later a demand notice dated April 9, 1973 (Exhibit R. 15 on the records of the Tribunal) was served on the management of the petitioner by Shri Vir Bhan, General Secretary of the Iron, Steel and Metal Workers Union (Registered), Ekta Bhawan , Putlighar, Amritsar calling in question the termination of employment of respondent Partap Singh. This led to the making of Reference No. 22 (Annexur P. 1) on February 7, 1973, under clause (d) of sub -section (1) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State Government. The second reference, that is, No. 24 (Annexure F. 2) too was made on the same day under the same provision of law with regard to the closure of the factory by the petitioner and terminating the services of 11 workers named therein.
(3.) Two preliminary objections were raised by the petitioner to these references vide Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 Regarding Annexure P. 1 it was stated that the dispute raised by Partap Singh is an individual dispute and was not industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec. 2(k) of the Act and it had not been sponsored or espoused by a substantial number of workmen of the respondent establishment and further the demand notice dated July 17, 1973 had been served on the management of the petitioner by the Iron, Steel and Metal Workers Union, Amritsar, which Union had no capacity to represent the worker and thus the dispute not having been raised by a competent person, the State Government had no jurisdiction to make the reference. Similarly with regard to Reference No. 24, it was stated that since the demand notice dated April 9, 1973, had been served upon the petitioner by the Union referred to above, the said notice was non -est and void as the Union was not a representative Union of the workmen of the petitioner establishment or a Union of allied trade. Both these contentions, as stated earlier, have been negatived by the Tribunal through the impugned order, Annexure P. 9.;