S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN the petition under Art 227 of the Constitution the petitioner-firm has brought in challenge the award of reinstatement and back wages passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Rajkot on 21-7-19869 Annexure A. The respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute to the effect that he was illegally terminated from service by the petitioner-Company. He therefore claimed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman was working as a Clerk with the petitioner-Transport Company in Surendranagar at the relevant time. In March 1981 his services were dispensed with. His contention was that the petitioner employer had not followed the provisions of Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the retrenchment was illegal. The workman raised this dispute and went to the Conciliator. The conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act to be appropriate Court. This is how the Labour Court was seized of this reference. After hearing both the sides and looking to whatever evidence was offered by them the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the temination of the respondent-workman amounted to retrenchment and as retrenchment compensation was not paid to the respondent-workman Secs 25f was violated and hence the retrenchment was null and void. Accordingly he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages However it was found on evidence that Rs. 2400. 00 were earned by the workman during the period of his unemployment and that amount was deducted from the full back wages awarded to the respondent workman He vas also granted continuity of service. It is this award which has been brought in challenge in the present petition. ( 2 ) MR. Damani learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition: (1) That reference by individual workman was not contemplated by the provisions of the Act and hence the reference was null and void. It is this award which has been brought in challenge in the present petition. ( 2 ) MR. Damani learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition: (1) That reference by individual workman was not contemplated by the provisions of the Act and hence the reference was null and void. (2) That the Labour Court had committed a patent error of law in holding that Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act was violated by the petitioner-Company as according to the learned Counsel this was not a case of retrenchment but it was a case of closure of the undertaking and consequently at the highest the respondent was entitled to closure compensation and nothing more but the termination of his service could not be said to be retrenchment. (3) That the workman had earned substantial amount during the period of his unemployment and therefore the Labour Court was not justified in awarding full back wages to the workman minus of course Rs. 2400. 00 as directed by the Labour Court. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So far as the first contention is concerned it is true that earlier dispute could be raised by Unions in the nature of collective dispute and individual disputes were not contemplated and that was the settled legal posit on as discernible from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. v. The Hindu AIR 1963 SC 318 . In thai case a Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of K. N. Wanchoo and J. C. Shah JJ. interpreted Sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act defining industrial dispute and laid down as follows:"a dispute between an employer and a single employee cannot per se be an industrial dispute but it may become one if it is taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. The persons who seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantialy interested in the dispute and this would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"it is on account of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that the Parliament intervened and introduced Sec 2a in the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 35 of 10g5 with effect from 1-12-1965. The said Sec. 2a reads as under"2 Where any employer discharges dismisses retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman any dispute or difference between the workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge dismissal retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any Union of workman is a party to the dispute "in view of the aforesaid amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act it becomes clear that from 1-12-1965 even individual disputes pertaining to discharge dismissal retrenchment or otherwise termination of service etc. of individual workman will also be deemed to be industrial disputes. Mr. Damani however submitted that even assuming that an individual workmans dispute would be an industrial dispute the procedure under Sec 10 (2) has to be followed and that would indicate that it is only the Union which can raise the dispute even for an individual workman. It is not possible to agree with this contention for the simple reason that Sec. 10 (2) existed on the Statute-Book from the very beginning and in those days Unions used to sponsor individual disputes and therefore the procedure under Sec. 10 (2) was laid down. The said provision reads as under:"10 Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner whether jointly or separately for a reference of the dispute to a Board Court Labour Court Tribunal of National Tribunal the appropriate Government is satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party shall make the reference accordingly"in view of the introduction of Sec. 2a on the Statute-Book therefore the procedure under Sec. 10 (2) cannot be pressed in service for agitating individual disputes. Sec 10 (2) will have to be read harmoniously with Sec. 2a introduced in 1965 as stated above. Therefore if an individual workman whose services are terminated raises an industrial dispute it will be treated as an industrial dispute which can be referred for adjudication under Sec. 10 (1) by the appropriate Government. Section 10 (1) provides that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute for adjudication. Section 10 (1) provides that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute for adjudication. Reading Sec. 10 (1) with Sec. 2a therefore it must be held that in case of individual dispute of workman contemplated by Sec. 2a the appropriate Government call be approached for referring such dispute for adjudication and in case of such dispute the procedure laid down in Sec. 10 (2) can obviously not be applicable. ( 3 ) WE may also in this connection refer to Sec. 12 of the Act which lays down the duties of conciliation officers. Sub-sec. (1) thereof provides that where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended the conciliation officer may or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Sec. 22 has been given shall hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. It is therefore obvious that even an individual workman raising an industrial dispute as contemplated by Sec. 2a can approach the conciliation officer for resolution of that dispute and if those proceedings fail on the submission of failure report by the concerned conciliation officer the appropriate Government can make a reference under Sec. 10 (1) and that is precisely what has been done in the present case. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent-workman raising his dispute under Sec. 2a had approached the concerned conciliation officer who tried to resolve the dispute by bringing both the sides before him and when that resolution failed be gave failure report which resulted in the present reference. Consequently the first contention of Mr. Damani is found to be devoid of any substance and is rejected. [rest of the Judgment is not material for the Reports. ]rule discharged. .