JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application made in the constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to the respondent No. 1 Seventh Industrial tribunal requiring it to transmit and certify to this Court the records of the preceedings had before it in connection with the dispute between the petitioners Municipal Commissioners and Prafulla Kumar Chakravarty of budge Budge, 24-Parganas and the award published by the said respondent no. 1 in the Calcutta Gazette on the 4th day of March, 1965, in connection with the said dispute and for quashing and setting aside the said award, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents to forbear and refrain from giving any effect to the said award and from enforcing or taking any step to enforce the same and for further or other reliefs. 2. THE facts leading to the present application are as follows : Upon a report made by the local Auditor under the Accountant general, West Bengal on or about July 11, 1963, that there was a defalcation of Rs. 11,524-96 np. by respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 was charged by the Chairman of the Budge Budge municipality by a letter dated, July, 18, 1963 with embezzlement and was called upon for an explanation within three months from the receipt of the said letter. By the said letter the respondent no. 3, was also suspended. 3. THE respondent No. 3 by letter dated, July 22, 1963 prayed for time till 31 August 1963, to repay the said money by instalments. 4. THE petitioners on August 10, 1963 accepted the said offer to repay the said sum by the respondent No. 3, subject to the opinion of the Government pleader. The petitioners on the said date also confirmed the suspension of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter on August 22, 1963, the police started a criminal case against the respondent No. 3 being case No. G. R. 3443 of 1963 in the court of sub-divisional Officer, Alipore. 5. The petitioners on the said date also confirmed the suspension of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter on August 22, 1963, the police started a criminal case against the respondent No. 3 being case No. G. R. 3443 of 1963 in the court of sub-divisional Officer, Alipore. 5. AT all material times an adjudication proceeding had been pending before the respondent No. 1, Seventh industrial Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute between the municipalities in West Bengal including the budge Budge Municipality and their workmen represented by the West bengal Municipal Employees' Federation in respect of "decasualisation of conservancy and other staff, i.e., personnel employed on 'no work no pay' basis, with effect from 1st April 1960 and the benefits of provident fund and/or gratuity, paid leave and other allied benefits for such staff". 6. ON December 18, 1963, the respondent no. 3 filed before the respondent no. 1 an application under section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the aforesaid proceedings pending before the respondent No. 1 against the said order of suspension on the ground of wrongful change of the condition of service by withholding wages illegally and unjustly and also inflicting punishment by way of suspension. Written statements were filed by the petitioners in the said application filed by respondent No. 3. By letter dated, September 19, 1964, the petitioners informed respondent no. 3 that an enquiry into the charges against the respondent No. 3 would be held by a One-Man Enquiry committee on September 27, 1964. The respondent No. 3 was directed to attend the said enquiry. The respondent No. 3 however did not attend the said enquiry. The enquiry was held in his absence and the respondent No. 3 was found guilty of the charges brought against him. Thereafter the petitioners accepted the report of the said enquiry committee and resolved to dismiss the respondent No. 3 subject to the approval of the State Government. The petitioners applied for such approval or consent in accordance with the provisions of law but such consent has not yet been obtained. 7. THE petitioners brought the aforesaid fact of the resolution dismissing the respondent No. 3 to the notice of the respondent No. 1. The petitioners applied for such approval or consent in accordance with the provisions of law but such consent has not yet been obtained. 7. THE petitioners brought the aforesaid fact of the resolution dismissing the respondent No. 3 to the notice of the respondent No. 1. Notwithstanding the objection, inter alia, as to the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to go into the said dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 1 adjudicated upon the said dispute and by award published in the Calcutta Gazette on March 11, 1965, rejected the contentions of the petitioners and held that respondent no. 3 was entitled to get his wages from the petitioners for the entire period of suspension, mentioned above. 8. HENCE this application has been filed for the reliefs mentioned hereinbefore. Before me it was contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Sanyal as follows, to wit: (1) The award contains an error of law apparent on the face of it in that (a) the respondent No. 3 had no connection with the dispute over the issue of decasualisation of conservancy and other staff employed on 'no work no pay' basis. As such Section 33a of the industrial Disputes Act was not attracted to the dispute between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners. (b) The petitioners as employers had the right to suspend their employee pending the investigation of an alleged misconduct charged against the employee, (c) Inasmuch as the said suspension of the respondent No. 3 was followed by dismissal, the said suspension merged in the dismissal and the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to any wages for the period of suspension, (d) The respondent No. 3 had admitted that he had defalcated the money, as such was admittedly guilty of misconduct and liable to be suspended and dismissed. 9. INDUSTRIAL dispute has been defined as "any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person". 10. THE contention of Mr. Sanyel is that Section 33a of the Industrial disputes Act was not attracted inasmuch as there could not be any contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the said suspension of the respondent no. 10. THE contention of Mr. Sanyel is that Section 33a of the Industrial disputes Act was not attracted inasmuch as there could not be any contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the said suspension of the respondent no. 3. The respondent No. 3 is not a "concerned workman" in the dispute pending before the respondent No. 1 under the order of the Government bearing No. 3623 I. R. dated, 19th July, 1960. The subject-matter of adjudication under the aforesaid order of reference was decasualisation of conservancy and other staff working on 'no work, no pay' basis and the amenities or other benefits to which they were entitled. The respondent No. 3 being a tax collector and cashier was not at all concerned in the said dispute. It has been held by the Tribunal being the respondent No. 1 following the case of (1) New India Motors (P) Ltd., new Delhi, v. K. T. Morris, A. I. R. (1960) S. C. 875 at 878 that "workman concerned does not necessarily mean a workman who is practically or immediately concerned with the dispute in question but would include all workmen by whom or on whose behalf the dispute is raised. The same would include also all workmen who would be bound by the award to be made in the said dispute", as such the respondent No. 3 does undoubtedly belong to the category of the workers of the Budge Budge municipality who would be bound by award made in the said reference. The tribunal has found that the dispute pending was raised by all the workmen of the Budge Budge Municipality. No ground has been established before me in order to enable me to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that there was no rule or terms of contract of employment between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners Municipality entitling the municipality to suspend without pay any worker including the respondent No. 3. In (2) Laxmi Devi Sugar Mill, (AIR 1957 S. C. 82) the Supreme court has held that a workman may be deprived of his wages during the period of suspension pending enquiry only if there is a provision in the standing order or in the contract of service, to that effect. In (2) Laxmi Devi Sugar Mill, (AIR 1957 S. C. 82) the Supreme court has held that a workman may be deprived of his wages during the period of suspension pending enquiry only if there is a provision in the standing order or in the contract of service, to that effect. In my opinion the subsequent dismissal of respondent No. 3 has no connection with the impugned award. Reference in this connection may be made also to the case of (3) Hotel imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers union, (1959) 2 LL. J. p. 544, wherein it has been held by the Supreme court to the following effect, to wit : "it is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the so-called period of suspension." such deprivaion of wages cannot also be made in a case where permission was required to be obtained under section 33 of the Act. Both the aforesaid contentions apply to the instant case. Thus in the instant case the respondent no. 3 could not be deprived of his wages during the period of suspension notwithstanding the fact that the respondent No. 3 was subsequently dismissed. The rule regarding suspension framed by the Municipality came into effect only from 28th August, 1963, as has been rightly held by the respondent no. 1 and does not apply to the contract of employment between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3. 11. FOR the reasons aforesaid all the contentions of Mr. Sanyal must fail and in the premises the rule is discharged. No order as to costs.