JUDGMENT K. N. Seth, J. - Messrs Wheelers Distributors Private Limited filed a petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur dated 12-10-1971 published in U. P. Gazette dated 15-12-1971 directing the reinstatement of Shri Chhedi Lal Karia with full wages and allowance. The learned single Judge set aside the award holding that the action of the employee in going on hunger strike without any valid notice amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 15(b) of the U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Niyamavali (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) and the employer was competent to dismiss the employee. The employee has challenged the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge. 2. It appears that Messrs A.H. Wheelers Company Private Limited and Messrs Wheelers Distributors Private Limited are two concerns having their offices in the same premises at 15, Elgin Road, Allahabad. Most of the Directors of the two companies are common and their principal place of business is also the same. The workmen employed in the two companies are members of the union known as Wheelers Karmachari Sangh, Allahabad. The workmen of Messrs A.H. Wheelers and Company Private Limited raised certain demands against their employers which was not acceded to whereupon some workmen of Messrs A.H. Wheelers and Company Private Limited went on hunger strike in November, 1967. Shri Chhedi Lal Karia, who was an employee of Messrs Wheelers Distributors Private Limited, served a notice on the Managing Director on 18-11-1967 intimating him that he was going on hunger strike in sympathy and support of his co-worker hunger striker Shri Ashish Kumar Mukherjee who was an employee of Messrs A. H. Wheelers Company Private Limited. The employers charge-sheeted Chhedi Lal Karia calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for the misconduct of striking work without giving due notice prescribed under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen concerned did not appear at the domestic enquiry. The Managing Director by its order dated 19-12-1967 dismissed him from service holding that he had struck work which amounted to misconduct under Rule 15(b) of the Rules. The workmen concerned did not appear at the domestic enquiry. The Managing Director by its order dated 19-12-1967 dismissed him from service holding that he had struck work which amounted to misconduct under Rule 15(b) of the Rules. On a dispute being raised be the workman the State Government referred the question whether the services of Chhedi Lal Karia had been terminated justifiably to Labour Court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication The Labour Court by its award dated 4-9-1971 held that the dismissal of C. L. Karia was unjustified and illegal and directed his reinstatement with full wages and allowances, which was challenged by the employers through a writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. 3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the action of the employee in going on hunger strike did not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 15(b). Rule 15(b) lays down that striking work either singly or with any other employee without giving due notice prescribed by any law for the time being in force shall constitute misconduct for the purposes of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder define strike, nor prescribe the requirements of a notice, strike, as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment." This definition of `Strike' implies a concerted action by a body of persons. Rule 15(b) introduces a modification to the effect that the strike may be either singly or with any other employee. However, in order to amount to strike it must be an action in pursuance of a concerted decision by the workmen. There must be a common understanding among the workers before an action is taken by an employee singly or with any other employee. If a workman acting on his individual whim decide on cessation of work it would not amount to strike as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. There must be a common understanding among the workers before an action is taken by an employee singly or with any other employee. If a workman acting on his individual whim decide on cessation of work it would not amount to strike as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The provision for notice before going on strike is also contained in the Industrial Disputes Act and a strike without proper notice is rendered illegal. No notice is required for mere absence from work. It is only when an employee goes on strike that a notice is required under law. To attract Rule 15(b) the action of the employee must amount to strike for then alone a notice prescribed by law is required. It was contended by the appellant that there was no material on record to indicate that the action of C. L. Karia was in pursuance of any decision taken by the Union. 5. On behalf of the responder reliance was placed on certain allegations made in the written statement filed on behalf of the employee before the labour court. We, however, find no admission made by the employee that his decision to go on hunger strike was a sequel to any decision taken by the Union in that regard. It may be pointed out that in the written statement filed by the employer there is no assertion that any decision had been taken by the workers that any employee of Mesrs Wheelers Distributors will go on strike in support of the strike launched by the employees of the sister concern. The letter addressed by C. L. Karia to the Managing Director also docs not indicate that his decision to go on hunger strike was in pursuance to any decision taken by the workers of Mesrs Wheelers Distributors. In fact it indicates that it was his personal decision. In this view of the matter it would not be correct to hold that the action of C. L. Karia amounted to `strike.' In that situation no notice was necessary. The action of C. L. Karia could at best amount to absence from work without prior leave but could not constitute misconduct for the purposes of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the Act. The action of C. L. Karia could at best amount to absence from work without prior leave but could not constitute misconduct for the purposes of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the Act. The only charge levelled against C. L. Karia was that he struck work on 18-11-1967 without notice which amounted to misconduct and he was guilty under Rule 15(b). As observed earlier Rule 15(b) was not attracted in the present case, and hence dismissal from service could not be justified. 6. Learned counsel for the employer contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not competent to refer an individual dispute for adjudication to labour court and on that ground tile award was invalid and void, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Messrs Har Narain Ashok Kumar v. State of U. P., 1973 (27) I.F. and L.R. 401, this contention has no merit and must fail. 7. No other point was raised before us. 8. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 6-2-1974 is set aside and the writ petition filed by Messrs Wheelers Distributors Private Limited challenging the award of the Labour Court is dismissed with `costs.'