Judgment 1. IN this application under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for appropriate writs directed against an order passed by the Eighth Industrial Tribunal, west Bengal, in case No. VIII-287/68, arising out of Government Order No. 5774-IR, dated 31 July 1968. 2. THE petitioner is a private limited company and carries on business of printing at its press situated at 26b, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta. The said business was alleged to have been closed down. It is alleged that the petitioner-company, at all material times, employed about eighty-seven workmen in the said printing business. It is alleged that besides office and supervisory staff the petitioner-company had about seventy workmen in the printing press. There were some difficulties which the petitioner-company was facing regarding the printing business and because of lack of printing orders the business of the petitioner-company was not running properly and that there was considerable fall in the printing orders. It appears that on 8. May 1968, the petitioner issued a notice stating that the management had been noticing that for some time past the workers were deliberately adopting tactics whereby usual normal day-to-day production was being regularly disrupted. They stated that unless the workmen stopped those tactics, the management would be compelled to take necessary steps against that. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner issued a notice, dated 11/5/1968. The petitioner decided to retrench some of the employees who were, according to the petitioner, surplus to their requirement. The reason which was put forward was that due to considerable fall of printing work in the press the management will not be in a position to give full-time work to all the employees. It appears that on 11 May 1968, a notice was given by fifty-three workers of the petitioner-company in respect of the notice of the petitioner, dated 8 May 1968. The facts alleged in the said notice, dated 8 May 1968, were denied and disputed and it was alleged that the said notice was motivated. The company was called upon to withdraw the said notice. On 13/5/1968, several letters were written to the petitioner-company protesting against the notice of retrenchment. When the general meeting of the workers of the petitioner-company was held on 12/5/1968, it was decided that the workers would request the management to withdraw the said retrenchment order. The company was called upon to withdraw the said notice. On 13/5/1968, several letters were written to the petitioner-company protesting against the notice of retrenchment. When the general meeting of the workers of the petitioner-company was held on 12/5/1968, it was decided that the workers would request the management to withdraw the said retrenchment order. It is alleged that on 12/5/1968, two tactics, namely "go-slow" and "sit-down strike," were adopted by the workers besides threats and intimidation. By a letter, dated 13 May 1968, the workers of the petitioner-company objected to such retrenchment notice. On 17 May 1968, the secretary of the union wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner regarding this retrenchment and asked him to intervene in the matter. In the meantime, on 25 May 1968, a notice of closure was issued by the petitioner-company stating that the management had been finding it extremely difficult to run the press since the last few months with intentional low production by workmen with their go-slow policy and for various actions. Various other allegations were made. It was stated that the management found itself unable to run the press any more and that it had decided to close down the printing press which was the only alternative left. Accordingly by the said notice the management purported to close down the press with effect from 25 May 1968. On 27 May 1968, the union wrote a letter to the Labour Officer of the Government of west Bengal protesting against the said closure and asking him to intervene in the matter. It was stated that this was not a proper closure but a lockout. On 30/5/1968, the union wrote a letter to the petitioner-company with reference to the notice of closure. It was stated that the allegations of go-slow tactics and sit-down strike on the part of the workers were news to them. It was categorically denied by them that the go-slow tactics and sit-down strike were adopted by the workers at any point of time as alleged or at all. On 1 June 1968, the secretary of the union in a letter to Sri Hazra, Labour Officer, stated that the management failed to appear in the conciliation meeting called by him. It was categorically denied by them that the go-slow tactics and sit-down strike were adopted by the workers at any point of time as alleged or at all. On 1 June 1968, the secretary of the union in a letter to Sri Hazra, Labour Officer, stated that the management failed to appear in the conciliation meeting called by him. By a letter, dated 24 June 1968, the petitioner-company made representations to the Labour Officer, west Bengal, as to the disputes raised before him regarding the retrenchment and closure and stated that they are justified in their action regarding the retrenchment of the workmen, and the closure. It appears that they had also made this point on 27/6/1968, before the Labour Officer in the presence of the workmen and the Conciliation Officer. Mean while, another letter was written through the union to the Labour Officer in respect of this alleged lockout, stating that there was no valid reason for closing. On 3/7/1968, the union made further representation to the directors of the petitioner-company and they made demand for opening of the press with immediate effect with full strength of the workers and for taking back all retrenched workmen. On 5/7/1968, another letter was issued by the petitioner-company to the labour Officer in connexion with the conciliation proceedings held regarding the retrenchment of the workmen and closure and justified their action regarding the same. Under these circumstances, an order of reference was made by the Government of west Bengal on 31/7/1968, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sec. 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the disputes and differences between the petitioner and the workers were referred to the Eighth industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The issues referred to therein are as follows : "Whether the retrenchment of Sarvasree (a) Golom Rasul, (b) Shaik Alauddin, (c) S. K. Rajabasu, (d) Mir Doulat Ali, (e) Golam Akbar, (f) Mohamad Ajmal, (g) Mohamad Wali, (h) Sahabat Ali, (i) Mohamad Ekbal, (j) Belayat Hossain, (k) Chunilal Bose, is justified ; whether the closure of the factory with effect from 25 May 1968, is real and bona fide ? Whether the closure is due to reasons beyond the control of the management and in the circumstances, justified? What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled ?" 3. IN their written statement before the tribunal the company raised a preliminary objection. Whether the closure is due to reasons beyond the control of the management and in the circumstances, justified? What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled ?" 3. IN their written statement before the tribunal the company raised a preliminary objection. This matter was heard by the industrial Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner, relying on the decision in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation, ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 529], that so far as issue (2) is concerned as no prior dispute was raised before the company directly before the order of reference, there was no industrial dispute and accordingly this order of reference must be held to be bad. The Tribunal considered this objection of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner by the impugned award, dated 13 May 1974. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner has challenged the said award in this application. 4. IN support of the rule similar submissions were made before me. It was submitted that so far as issue (2) is concerned, that is, the issue regarding closure, no dispute was raised with the company before the reference was made and, accordingly, there cannot be any industrial dispute which could be referred for adjudication. In this context reference was made to the decision in the case of Sindhu resettlement Corporation [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 529] (vide supra. Sri Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, disputed the correctness of the contention of the petitioner and submitted that such a dispute was in fact raised before the company. In this context he referred to the relevant correspondence. The law on this aspect is now well settled. Before a dispute can become an industrial dispute which can be referred for adjudication, the dispute must be taken up with the company. Mere reference of the matter to the conciliation Officer would not be sufficient to enable the Government to make an order of reference in connexion with the same. The law on this aspect is now well settled. Before a dispute can become an industrial dispute which can be referred for adjudication, the dispute must be taken up with the company. Mere reference of the matter to the conciliation Officer would not be sufficient to enable the Government to make an order of reference in connexion with the same. This aspect of the matter was also considered by me in detail in the case of Hindusthan Steel, Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported at page 236 infra], wherein I delivered my judgment on, 29/1/1976, and also in the case of workmen of National Iron and Steel Company v. Third Industrial Tribunal in Civil Rule no. 1873 (W) of 1972, wherein I delivered my judgment on 21/7/1975. Accordingly i need not discuss the same in detail. 5. IN this particular case it is clear that apart from specifically raising the demand regarding retrenchment of some employees, the question of the closure of the press was also raised with the company. Further, it is to be pointed out that not only that this matter was raised by the workmen with the petitioner-company directly but that in conciliation proceeding held in this connexion the petitioners participated and therein also the petitioner-company rejected this demand of the petitioner. In the decisions referred to above. I have considered this aspect of the matter and in this context I have referred also to a judgment of rajasthan High Court in Good Year India, Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal [A.I.R. 1969 Raj. 95], wherein it was held that if the workmen raise this demand in conciliation proceedings and if the same is rejected by the company therein, that would be sufficient for the purpose of referring such industrial dispute apart from the question of making such demand directly to the company. In its letter, dated 24 June 1968, the petitioner-company has not only specifically referred the question of retrenchement but also the question of closure of the press by the petitioner-company. It also appears from this that during the conciliation proceedings held on 17/6/1968, the stand taken by the company was to justify their action not merely in connexion with retrenchment but also regarding the closure. From the letter, dated 3/7/1968, which is addressed to the directors of the petitioner-company it is clear that this matter was specifically raised by the workmen with the petitioner-company. From the letter, dated 3/7/1968, which is addressed to the directors of the petitioner-company it is clear that this matter was specifically raised by the workmen with the petitioner-company. By the said letter, after setting out their case that such a retrenchment was illegal and that the closure was unjustified and that it was really a lockout, the workers had specifically asked for opening of the press. That is a demand in respect of alleged closure of the press. It is an admitted position that this demand has not been acceded to by the petitioner-company. Further, from the letter, dated 5 July 1968, it is also clear that in the joint conference for conciliation held, the petitioners had refused to accede to the request and/or demand of the workmen and that they have reiterated their position and justified their action in not merely retrenching these persons but closing down the press itself. 6. FROM the aforesaid it is clear that this demand was specifically taken up by the workmen with the petitioner-company but the same was not acceded to. In the conciliation proceedings also such a demand was made on behalf of the workmen which was rejected by the company concerned. In my opinion, this is sufficient to show that a demand was raised prior to the order of reference and that the order of reference was a perfectly valid one. The test laid down in Sindhu Resettlement corporation case [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 529] (vide supra), is fully satisfied in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons I reject the contentions of Sri Dutta. Accordingly, I dismiss this application and discharge the rule. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.