ORDER : M.A. ANSARI, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is against the Industrial Award of December 18, 1957. 2. The Government had in exercise of powers under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey the following questions:- (i) Is the non-engagement of worker M. Janaradhana Pai justifiable? (ii) To what relief is he entitled - (a) If the non-engagement is not justifiable? and (b) If the non-engagement is found justifiable? (iii) Is there any arrears of wages due to be paid to him? If so what is the amount? (iv) Should there be any bonus to be paid to him for the period from 1129 on wards? If so what is the amount? The aforesaid employee is said to have been engaged by the Sasi Industrials, Shertallai, who is the second respondent to this petition, was getting a monthly salary of Rs.150/-; and to have been without any justification dismissed on June 9, 1956. We need not give further details of the several claims put in by the employer and by the Travancore Cochin Mercantile and Hotel Employees’ Union, Shertallai, which appear to have brought before the Tribunal the case of the employee; because the Tribunal has found that the dispute arising from Janardhana Pai’s dismissal was not covered by S. 2 (k) of the I.D. Act and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate. 3. The grounds for holding the dispute to be such is that though the employee had sworn to his having become a member of the Union towards the end of 1955, and having complained to the Union on June 19 1956, yet the Union had not let in any evidence about demands having been made from the management to meet the claims of the aggrieved workman, and having raised the present dispute on the refusal by management. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the admission by the employee in his cross-examination of having received a notice from the conciliation officer; but has found the admission insufficient for establishing a dispute mainly because of the absence of any statement by Union concerning the answer to the notice, or the refusal by the management to the demand by the Union. The Tribunal has therefore treated the dispute to be merely between a workman and his employer and on this preliminary objection has held the reference to be improper. 4. These conclusions are challenged before us on the ground that the employee is proved to be a member of the Union, which is registered, and that the dispute has arisen between the employer and the workers’ Union. Therefore the short question raised in this petition is how far the several grounds taken by the Tribunal for treating the dispute not to be covered by the Act can be held either inadequate or incorrect. 5. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is well-settled by several pronouncements In Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, 1957 (1) Labour Law Journal 27, the Supreme Court has held that the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class, and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman is not intended to be the object of an adjudication under the Act, when the same has not been taken up by the union or a number of workmen. Again News Paper Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Utter Pradesh, 1957 (II) Labour Law Journal 1 has reaffirmed that the provisions of the Act lead to the conclusion that its applicability to an individual dispute, as opposed to dispute involving a group of workmen, is excluded, unless it acquires the general characteristics of a dispute between the employer & the workmen as a body. Also a Division Bench of this Court in Chittadi Estate (By Superintendent) v. Industrial Tribunal 1959 (II) Labour Law Journal 184=1959 KLT. 370 has decided that the dispute relating to the cause of a single workman cannot be referred to under the Act where no evidence be forthcoming to show the cause having been ever espoused by his fellow-workmen, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the reference on objection of the party aggrieved. It follows that the conclusions by the Tribunal on the employees’ dispute not having been taken up by the Union, must be found incorrect before any relief can be given. It follows that the conclusions by the Tribunal on the employees’ dispute not having been taken up by the Union, must be found incorrect before any relief can be given. But it is clear that this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual decisions of the Industrial Tribunal and it cannot be said that the Tribunal’s decisions in this petition are vitiated by no evidence in the case. That apart, the legal error should be apparent on the face of the record to sustain certiorari and this has been again decided in Satyanarayanan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR. 1960 SC. 137. The counsel for the petitioner has not convinced us that error, assuming the award to be vitiated by an error is of such nature. Therefore the petition fails. But having regard to the impoverished circumstances of the worker, who is also the brother-in-law of the employer, we think the dismissal should be without costs. Dismissed.