( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon ble Supreme court in Kays Constructions Co. (Private) limited Vs. Its Workmen reported as AIR 1959 SC 208 (V 46 C 26) to submit that the issue raised in the writ petition is fully covered by the said judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: ". . . . . . . . . . . The definition of the expression industrial dispute is wide enough to cover a dispute raised by the employer s workmen in regard to the non-employment of others who may not be his workmen at the material time. " ( 2 ) THERE is no merit in the plea of the petitioner that the case such as the respondent No. 1 cannot call for a reference because the respondent No. 1 is a non- workman. The above judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court concludes this issue in favour of respondent No. 1 and is accordingly decided against the petitioner. ( 3 ) EVEN on merits the reason for denying the employment to respondent No. 1, by the petitioner has been that the elder brother of respondent No. 1 was driving three wheeler and was earning his livelihood. The petitioner has however been found by the Tribunal not to have substantiated this plea. Even otherwise this itself is not official ground to deny employment to respondent No. 1 particularly when the employment of the sibling is not with MCD or any other government agency. In this view of the matter no interference is called for under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.