JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, a partnership firm, runs a factory styled as Bhopal Tanneries and Glue Works, Bhopal. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing glue. Bhopal Tanneries and Glue Workers Union is a registered trade union of the employees in the employment of the petitioner and is a representative of the employees within the meaning of the term as used in the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the industry of manufacture of glue by its very nature is seasonal. It necessarily involves a process of drying which cannot be done during rainy season. The petitioner, however, purchased a mechanical drier in 1971 so that the drying process was not suspended even during rains. This machine worked well during the year 1971, but did not work in the following year due to certain manufacturing defect. Drying, therefore, was not possible during the rainy season in the year 1972 as a consequence of which the factory had to be closed for that period. The Management of the petitioners factory, therefore, gave a notice of closure of the factory during the rainy season of the year 1972. The notice (Annexure- A) was dated 5-5- 1972 and was to be effective from 20-5-1972. This notice resulted in termination of services of all casual, temporary and seasonal workers employed in the petitioners factory. The notice, however, assured re-employment to all permanent seasonal workers of the factory in the next season. The notice (Annexure- A) runs thus : "it is notified for information of all concerned that the Production season of the factory will be closing on May 20th this year. The following categories of workers would be affected from the dates given and as such their services would stand terminated with effect from such dates. It is further notified that before re-opening the factory for fresh season, seven days notice shall be given to all permanent seasonal employees of the factory, who have lien on their post at the commencement of the next season. The permanent seasonal employees who offer themselves for reemployment within a fortnight shall be given preference over other persons according to the length of service, but it will be subject to the number of employees required for the season: ( 3. ) THE above notice of closure gave rise to a dispute between the petitioner and its employees. The permanent seasonal employees who offer themselves for reemployment within a fortnight shall be given preference over other persons according to the length of service, but it will be subject to the number of employees required for the season: ( 3. ) THE above notice of closure gave rise to a dispute between the petitioner and its employees. The employees Union (respondent No. 1) through its President, Yaqoob Ali Khan preferred a claim before the Labour Court, bhopal, under section 61 read with section 81 of the M. P. Industrial Relations act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), challenging the notice, dated 5-5-1972 (Annexure-A), as invalid and prayed that the closure be declared illegal. During these proceedings before the Labour Court, the Union filed an application under section 107 of the Act read with Rule 85 made thereunder praying for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from closing the factory during the pendency of the matter before it. Opposing the application, the petitioner besides challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court urged that the Act did not apply to the petitioners industry engaged in manufacture of glue. By order, dated 22-5-1972, the Labour Court restrained the petitioner until further orders from discharging or putting out of employment such employees who had been in the petitioners employment for more than six months. This order of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Court where it was mainly urged that the Act was not applicable to the petitioners industry engaged in manufacture of glue, that the industry was seasonal and that no prima facie case was made out for grant of temporary injunction. The industrial Court vide its order, dated 26-6 1972, held that the Labour Court bad no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute itself. Consequently, it was held that the main application itself did not lie and, therefore, the application for grant of temporary injunction was also not maintainable. The order of the labour Court granting temporary injunction was, therefore, set aside. But then the Industrial Court did not stop at that. It found that the Glue is a form of Gelatine. As it is a common ground that the Act is applicable to gelatine industry, the Industrial Court further found that the Act is applicable to the petitioners industry also. But then the Industrial Court did not stop at that. It found that the Glue is a form of Gelatine. As it is a common ground that the Act is applicable to gelatine industry, the Industrial Court further found that the Act is applicable to the petitioners industry also. It has further been observed in that order (paragraphs 25 and 26) that the factory is not a seasonal factory and, therefore, the employments could not be terminated without complying with the various provisions of clause 12 of the Standard Standing Orders. Thus, although in ultimate conclusion the application for temporary injunction stood rejected, yet various prejudicial findings have been recorded by the Industrial Court against the petitioner. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges all those adverse findings and directions contained in the order of the Industrial Court. ( 4. ) THE question canvassed by Shri Gulab Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that glue is not gelatine and the State Act, which has been made applicable to the gelatine industry alone, would therefore be not applicable to the workmen employed by the petitioner. By Notification No. 8011/8446/xvi, dated 23-12-1969, issued in exercise of the powers under section 1 (3) of the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, the Act has been made applicable to gelatine Industry which undertaking is added as item No. 27 of the Schedule to the notification. The term workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (Central Act) means- "any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute-". Thus, the Central Act applies to workman employed in any industry, while the state Act (M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960) applies to undertakings in the industries specified in the Schedule to the notification issued under section 1 (3)of the State Act. The two Acts cover the same field regulating the relations of employees in certain matters and making provisions for settlement of industrial disputes. The two Acts cover the same field regulating the relations of employees in certain matters and making provisions for settlement of industrial disputes. The subject-matter of the two Acts falls under the concurrent list and as the State Act was assented to by the President, it displaces the application of the Central Act to the industries to which the State Act is applied by notification under section 1 (3 ). The displacement of the Central Act by the State Act regarding a particular industry has, therefore, to be shown by a clear specification of the industry concerned in the notification issued under the State Act. The notification under section 1 (3) of the State Act has, therefore, to be construed in a limited sense. See S K. M. S. , Rajnandgaon v. M/s. H. S. Ltd. , 1973 M PL J 269. In Craies on Statute Law (6th Edition) the law as to construction of particular terms and words used in a statute is stated at page 162 as under : "critical refinements and subtle distinctions are to be avoided, and the obvious and popular meaning of the language should, as a general rule, be followed"; and at page 164, the other rule is stated to be that if an Act is one dealing with a particular trade, business or transaction in which there are terms which everybody conversant with those matters understands to have a particular meaning, then the words used in that Act must be construed as having that particular meaning which may differ from the ordinary or popular meaning. Thus, the rule of construction appears to be that words used in general statutes are to be understood in their popular sense. It is, however, permissible to refer to technical books, but only for a limited purpose of understanding the meaning of technical terms. It is the purpose and subject-matter of a statute which determine and control the meaning of the words used in it. The words should, therefore, be attributed such meaning as would assist in advancing the purpose of the statute. In R. N. Mishra v. The Works Manager, Burn and Co. Ltd, 1966 MP L J 601. It is the purpose and subject-matter of a statute which determine and control the meaning of the words used in it. The words should, therefore, be attributed such meaning as would assist in advancing the purpose of the statute. In R. N. Mishra v. The Works Manager, Burn and Co. Ltd, 1966 MP L J 601. a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the undertaking specified in the Schedule to the notification issued under section 1 (3) of the State Act observed: "how, the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which regulates the relations of employees in certain matters and makes provision for settlement of industrial disputes and provides for certain other matters connected therewith, is not an Act dealing with a particular industry or an undertaking therein. It is not a technical enactment. It is a general statute regulating industrial relations in any or all industries or undertakings in any industry as may be notified. The Act being a general statute, the Words used therein must be construed in their popular sense. Again, as the Act does not apply to all industries or undertakings therein but only to those which the Government may select for being governed by the Act, the industries that may be specified in a notification under section 1 (3) must be understood in a limited sense and not in a wider sense. " Applying these observations to the present case, gelatine industry as included in the Schedule to the Notification should, therefore, be understood in a limited sense and not in a wider sense. ( 5. ) BESIDES, the Schedule to the Notification itself would indicate that the undertaking (gelatine industry) as included in that Schedule cannot be given a wide connotation. Wherever to a particular underktaing included in the schedule a wider meaning was supposed to be attributed, the words of inclusion have also been used. Entries relating to textiles, potteries, engineering illustrate that the State wanted to attribute wider meaning to those industries by using words of inclusion along with those industries. In the absence of any such words of inclusion, the gelatine industry as included in the Schedule is not capable of being given any wider meaning than the one which it connotes in common parlance. In the absence of any such words of inclusion, the gelatine industry as included in the Schedule is not capable of being given any wider meaning than the one which it connotes in common parlance. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 10 (1970 Edition), at page 51, gelatin has been described as one of the commoner proteins, most familiar as a food. It has many industrial uses which do not require the high purity of the edible grades. It can be found in different molecular sizes and as it is a mixture of degradation products, no definite structure or size has been determined. It is composed of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulpher. In the food industry, advantage is taken of the jellying properties in the manufacture of gelatin desserts, jellied meats and soups, jellied candies and other forms of confectionery. It has value as protein food in pharmacy. Its most important use is in the manufacture of capsules in which glycerin may be incorporated if a soft capsule rather than a bard one is desired. It is manufactured from raw materials which include hides, skins, bones, sinews of any other suitable collagenous substance. Many different qualities of gelatin can be prepared from a given collegenous raw material. The less vigorous the hydrolytic treatment used in its preparation, the higher is the quality of the resulting gelatin. On the other hand, glue has been classified as an adhesive. In volume 1 of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1970 Edition) at page 143, different forms of glues have been treated under the common heading adhesives. The various forms of glues as shown therein are animal glues, case in glue, vegetable glues and natural gums and Regins. Prepared from the hides and bones of various animals, glue is said to be an impure form of gelatin usually sold in the form of granules or flakes which are heated in water before being used. The principal use of animal glue is indicated to be in wood working and the manufacture of coated abrasives such as sandpaper. Case in glue made from milk is better suited than animal glue. Its adhesion to porous materials is good and its moisture resistance is some what superior to animal glue. Vegetable glues are prepared from starches or dextrins and are principally used in paper products industry. Case in glue made from milk is better suited than animal glue. Its adhesion to porous materials is good and its moisture resistance is some what superior to animal glue. Vegetable glues are prepared from starches or dextrins and are principally used in paper products industry. It will thus be seen that gelatin is principally a protein food and is edible, and in pharmacy its most important use is in the manufacture of capsules, glue, on the other hand, is commonly used as an adhesive. Different varieties are put to different purposes and its manufacturing process is rather simple. On the other hand, gelatine is normally used as edible and commercially in pharmacy as capsules. The process of manufacture is more elaborate requiring more skilled workmanship. Thus the working conditions of workman in these two industries may be different. It appears that for this reason, although the Schedule includes gelatin industry, it does not mention glue either as included in gelatine industry or as a separate item. ( 6. ) THE Industrial Court has, after making a reference to Concise Oxford dictionary, Shorter Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary, reached a conclusion that glue is nothing but gelatine or a kind of gelatine. In so doing, the rule of interpretation, the purpose of the enactment and the meaning attributed to these terms as understood in their popular sense have been overlooked. Similarly, a reference to the price-list and the letter head of the petitioner is irrelevant and furnishes no guide to reach to the meaning to be assigned to the term gelatine industry as used in the Schedule to the notification under section 1 (3) of the Act. In our opinion, the industrial Court was not right in finding that glue is included in gelatine industry and, therefore, was also not right in finding that the Act would apply to the petitioners undertaking. We are of opinion that gelatine industry as incorporated at item 27 of the Schedule to notification issued under section 1 (3) of the Act does not include glue. Consequently we find that the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, is not applicable to the workmen employed in petitioners industry engaged in manufacture of glue and not gelatine. ( 7. We are of opinion that gelatine industry as incorporated at item 27 of the Schedule to notification issued under section 1 (3) of the Act does not include glue. Consequently we find that the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, is not applicable to the workmen employed in petitioners industry engaged in manufacture of glue and not gelatine. ( 7. ) HAVING found that the original application of the respondent No. 1 union was not maintainable and that the proceedings before the Labour Court were without jurisdiction, the Industrial Court could have done better to stop at that and not proceeded to enter into merits. What we find is that the industrial Court has entered into a lengthy discussion in paragraph 25 of its order (Annexure-G) to find that the petitioners factory is not seasonal. Further, in paragraph 26 of that order, it has been observed that "the said notice (dated 5-5-72-Annexure-A) cannot be taken support of to discharge the employees. We feel that having reached a conclusion that the proceedings before the Labour Court were without jurisdiction and, therefore, not maintainable, the Industrial Court should not have recorded any findings on the merits of the case. ( 8. ) WE, therefore, hold that the M. P. Industrial Relations Act. 1960, is not applicable to the petitioners industry in manufacturing glue and not gelatine. With this additional reason, we agree with the conclusion reached by the Industrial Court dismissing the application of the respondent No. 1-Union for grant of temporary injunction. We further quash the findings and observations in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order (Annexure-G) of the industrial Court. Subject to this, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Order accordingly.