ORDER : (R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.) The present writ petition has been filed by the General Secretary of a Trade Union challenging the order passed by the first respondent on 13.09.2024 and a consequential order dated 16.12.2024 wherein he had returned a petition filed under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that only an application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act is maintainable. 2. One office bearer of the petitioner union, namely the treasurer and two frontline union activists were dismissed by the third respondent management. The union passed a resolution on 18.10.2023 to take up the cause of all three dismissed employees and to raise an industrial dispute. 3. Based upon the said resolution, the petitioner union presented an application under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the first respondent on 10.09.2024. The said application was returned by the first respondent on 13.09.2024 with a direction to file a fresh application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act . The union represented the said application to the first respondent requesting him to take cognizance of the industrial dispute. Again it was returned with the same endorsement. These two orders are put to challenge in the present writ petition. 4. According to the writ petitioner, the availability of the remedy under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to an individual worker is not a bar for invoking the remedy under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act . When the petitioner union is ready to espouse the cause of a dismissed employee, the first respondent cannot refuse to entertain such an application and pressurise the union and the dismissed employees to avail the remedy under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act . According to him, the power of the first respondent under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act is still retained even after introduction of Section 2-A in the year 1965. Hence, he prayed for allowed the writ petition. 5.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that three employees have been dismissed from service by the third respondent management. In cases of dismissal, the individual workers are always at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 2-A of the Act. There is no necessity whatsoever to file an application under Section 2 (k) of the Act. In cases of dismissal, the individual workers are always at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 2-A of the Act. There is no necessity whatsoever to file an application under Section 2 (k) of the Act. The first respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 2 (k) of the Act. After introduction of Section 2-A , even the individual disputes should be considered to be an industrial disputes in cases of dismissal, retrenchment etc. Therefore, even without the assistance of the trade union, the dismissed employees can approach the Labour Court. Only in the interest of the dismissed employees, such an order of return has been passed by the first respondent. Hence, she prayed for sustaining the said order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material records. 7. Before introduction of Section 2-A , whenever there was an industrial dispute, the same has to be espoused only by a trade union and it should be dispute between the employers and employers or employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which are connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour. Unless the cause of an individual workman is espoused by a trade union, such a dispute will not be considered to be an industrial dispute. Only to alleviate the difficulty faced by some workman, whose cause was not espoused by the union or by a majority of the workman or the workman being not a member of any union, Section 2-A was introduced to cover the cases of dismissal, retrenchment etc. However, it was made clear that the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act can be invoked by an individual workman, only relating to the cases specified therein. Therefore, even after introduction of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , the other disputes falling under the definition of industrial dispute have to be raised only by invoking Section 2(k) of the Act. 8. Section 2-A was introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 01.12.1965 onwards. Under the said provision, if an individual workman has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated, the same could be deemed to be an industrial disputes notwithstanding the fact that the other workman or any union of the workman is not a party to the dispute. 8. Section 2-A was introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 01.12.1965 onwards. Under the said provision, if an individual workman has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated, the same could be deemed to be an industrial disputes notwithstanding the fact that the other workman or any union of the workman is not a party to the dispute. When an employee invokes Section 2-A of the Act, there is no necessity for a reference by the Government under Section 10 of the Act. However, such an application has to be presented within a period of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1976) 3 SCC 71 (Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd., Vs. T.B.Kadam) in Paragraph No.6 has held as follows: 6.....Even before the introduction of section 2A a dispute relating to an individual workman could become an industrial dispute by its being sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. Any reference under section 10 would be made only sometime after the dispute itself has arisen. The only relevant factor for consideration in making a reference under section 10 is whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. There cannot be any doubt that on the day the reference was made in the present case an industrial dispute as defined under Section. 2A did exist. Normally the dispute regarding an individual workman is not an industrial dispute unless it is sponsored by the union to which he belongs or a group of workmen. The change made by section 2A is that in certain cases such a dispute need not be so sponsored and it will still be deemed an industrial dispute. Supposing in this very case a labour union or a group of workmen had sponsored the case of the respondent before the reference was made, such a reference would have been valid. All that section 2A has done is that by legislative action such a dispute is deemed to be an industrial dispute even where it is not sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. What a labour union or a group of workmen can do the law is competent to do . ....” 10. All that section 2A has done is that by legislative action such a dispute is deemed to be an industrial dispute even where it is not sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. What a labour union or a group of workmen can do the law is competent to do . ....” 10. A careful perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will make it clear that by introduction of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , even an individual dispute would be deemed to be an industrial disputes (even if it is not sponsored by a union or a group of workmen) provided it is case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. It is to be pointed out that after introduction of Section 2-A , 2 (k) was not amended. Therefore, when an individual dispute is espoused by a trade union, even as on today, the same can be an industrial dispute. 11. The introduction of 2-A has only widened the remedy available to an individual workman. He can espouse his own cause without waiting for any support from the union or a group of workman. It does not in any way take away the right of an individual workman to approach the trade union to espouse his cause so that it can be treated as an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act . 12. As on today, an individual workman can either treat a case of dismissal, as his individual dispute and approach the Labour Court directly or he can treat the same as an industrial dispute with the assistance of his union or group of workmen and approach the authority concerned. The choice is left to him. There is no bar under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act to treat an individual dispute as an industrial dispute if it is espoused by a union or a group of workmen. This position has not been altered even after the introduction of Section 2A in the Act. 13. Out of the three dismissed employees, one is a State level office bearer and other two are frontline union activists of the petitioner union. In such circumstances, it should only be appreciated that the union has taken up the cause of individual workmen, without leaving the dispute to be defended by the individual workmen. 13. Out of the three dismissed employees, one is a State level office bearer and other two are frontline union activists of the petitioner union. In such circumstances, it should only be appreciated that the union has taken up the cause of individual workmen, without leaving the dispute to be defended by the individual workmen. When it is alleged that the individual workmen have been victimized for their involvement in their trade union activities, the union is expected to defend those individual employees treating their individual dispute as an industrial dispute. 14. In view of the above said deliberations, the order of the first respondent returning the application under Section 2 (k) of the Act, instructing the workman to approach the Labour Court directly by invoking Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , is not legally sustainable. The orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside and the first respondent is directed to entertain the application and proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.