RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE management of M/s. Vanivilasa co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, hiriyur has presented this appeal against the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition in which it had questioned the legality of the order of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore on I. A. No. 1 casting the burden regarding espousal of the industrial dispute on the management. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows : The second respondent trade union of the workmen of the appellant-factory raised an industrial dispute in respect of confirmation of the services of 25 workmen and termination of services of 11 workmen. The State Government, by its order dated 4-6-1980 referred the matter for industrial adjudication to the second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed an additional issue-1 which reads :-"whether there is no proper espousal of the dispute of the workmen by the l-Party Union"as against framing of the said issue, an application was filed before the Labour Court praying for recasting the issue as follows :-"whether the dispute has been espoused by a recognised union having a majority of its workmen as members and had been duly authorised". This application was made on the ground that the issue as originally framed cast the burden on the appellant-management though all the information relating to the isaue were within the exclusive knowledge of the second respondent, and the issue was such the burden of proving it lay on the workmen and therefore, the same should be recast. The application was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant presented the writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed holding that tne burden was rightly cast on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is presented by the appellant. ( 3 ) SRI P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless there was proper espousal of the industrial dispute by substantial number of workmen or by a recognised trade union there would be no industrial dispute at all. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is presented by the appellant. ( 3 ) SRI P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless there was proper espousal of the industrial dispute by substantial number of workmen or by a recognised trade union there would be no industrial dispute at all. Therefore, when a specific plea was raised by the appellant that the espousal was hot lawful because it did not have the support of majority of workmen and further the trade union which espoused the cause of the workmen was not recognised by the appellant, the Labour Court ought to have recast the issues so as to throw the burden on the second-party union. He relied on the following decisions : i) 1s63 (2) LLJ 10, Assam High court. (National Power Supply Corporation v State of Assam) ii) 1961 (2) LLJ 436 , Supreme court. (Bombay Union of Journalists v The "hindu", Bombay and another) iii) 1965 (1) LLJ 95, Madras High court. (Nellai Cotton Mills, Tirunelveli v labour Court, Madurai and another) iv) 1975 (1) LLJ 293, Calcutta high Court. (Deepak Industries Limited and another v State of West bengal and others ). ( 4 ) SRI V. Gopala Gowda, learned counsel for the second respondent however submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian oxygen Limited v The Workmen employed by M/s. Indian Oxygen Limited reported in A. I. R. 1979 SC 1196, it can no longer be contended that when a registered trade union of the Workmen of the concerned industry has raised an industrial dispute, there was no valid espousal on the ground that it was not a recognised trade-union. He relied on para-10 of the said judgment, which reads :-"section 4k of the U P. Act provides that where the State Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may refer the dispute or any matter appearing to ba connected with, or relevant to the dispute to a Tribunal, clause (1) of Sec. 2 of that Act defines as industrial dispute to mem, interalia any dispute or difference between employers and workmen which is connected with the terms of their employment. The expression "workman" has been defined in Clause (z) of Section 2 to mean, speaking generally "any person" employed in any industry in the capacity mentioned therein There is nothing in the Act to require that a dispute or difference should be raised by all the workmen of the industiy, or by everyone of them, or even by a majority of them. It is enough, if the controversy is between the employer on the one side and workmen on the other. So also, there is nothing in the Act to require that the workmen raising the controversy should form a majority of the employees The reason appears to be that where it is found that the controversy affects, or will affect, the intetest of workmen as a class, the law envisages that in the interest of industrial peace, it should be examined and decided in one of the modes provided by it. An individual dispute cannot however be said to be an industrial dispute unless ofcourse, the other workmen associates themselves with it. No hard and fast tule can possibly be laid down in such circumstances to decide when and by how many workmen an industrial dispute can be raised within the meaning of the Act, or whether a minority union or even an unrecognised union can raise an industrial dispute. It is enough, if there is a potential cause of disharmony which is likely to endanger industrial peace and a substantial number of workmen raise a dispute about it, for then it is permissible to take the view that it is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Cl (1) of Sec. 2 of the U. P. Act and to refer it for adjudication to a Tribunal. Reference in this connection may be made to a Tribunal's finding of fact that although the karmachari Union was not a recognised union and it was not 8 member of the Federal union, it had a "substantial number of workmen of the concern as its members". We have no doubt therefore, that the State government rightly took the view that the controversy raised by the Karmachari unicn was an Industrial dispute". The above paragraph is a complete answer not only to the contentions raised in the writ appeal rega. We have no doubt therefore, that the State government rightly took the view that the controversy raised by the Karmachari unicn was an Industrial dispute". The above paragraph is a complete answer not only to the contentions raised in the writ appeal rega. ding the correctness of the order of the Tribunal on the application of the appellant for recasting the issue, but also to the issue sought to be raised itself. ( 5 ) THE decision of the Supreme court in 1961 (2) LLJ in the case of bombay Union of Working Journalists also makes it clear that it was only when the dispute concerning an individual workman was raised by a General union, the question of examining as to whether it had the backing of the substantial workmen of the industry concerned would arise, but not in a case when the dispute is raised by the trade-union of the workmen of the industry concerned. The other decisions of the High courts are also to the same effect. ( 6 ) IN the present case, there is no dispute that the second respondent-union is a registered trade union exclusively of the workmen of the appellant-industry. Further, it is also clear from the order of reference, the dispute concerns as many as 36 workmen who are members of the second respondent trade union which number itself in our opinion is substantial. Infact, in the reply of the appellant dated 23. 4. 1979 addressed to the Concilliation officer, in the opening part of the letter, the appellant had stated thus:"there are two unions in this factory. One was registered in the year 1976 and another during December 1978. The Union registered in December 1978 has submitted 9 demands as printed in the pamphlet. "from the above part of the letter, it is clear that the second respondent union was a registered trade union of the workmen of the Appellant. The fact that the appellant-management had not yet recognised the said union has no effect on the validity of espou. "from the above part of the letter, it is clear that the second respondent union was a registered trade union of the workmen of the Appellant. The fact that the appellant-management had not yet recognised the said union has no effect on the validity of espou. al as held by the Supreme Court in the case of indian Oxygen Ltd. , ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, we hold not only that the order of the Labour Court in Iraming additional issue No. 1 should be upheld, but we a e also of the view that the said issue should be answered in favour of the second respondent without giving any scope for further procrastination of the proceeding as in deciding this question itself, more than 6 years have elapsed. We answer the issue accordingly in favour of the workman. In the rusult, we make the following:"1) Writ Appeal in so far it relates to the challenge of the order of the labour Court on I. A. No. 1 is concerned, it is dismissed. 2. The additional Issue No. 1 framed by the Labour Court is answered by us in favour of the second respondent ; 3. A direction shall issue to the labour Court to dispose of the dispute on merits of the case most expeditiously. Prepare a carbon copy of this order and despatch forthwith to the Labour court. " --- *** --- .