O. Chinnappa Reddi, J.
1. In industrial Dispute No. 34 of 1964, the presiding officer labour court Guntur held that the management of Polisetti Somasundaram, Leaf Tobacco Merchants and Exporters was not justified in dismissing its employee, S.K.M. Subhanl, who was represented by the Tobacco Employees' Association, Guntur.
2. Sri Srinivasa Murthi, learned Counsel for the management in this application for the issue of a writ to quash the award of the labour court argues that there was no industrial dispute before the labour court since the Tobacco Employees Association which espoused the cause of the dismissed workman is not a union of the workmen of the employer's establishment and there is no evidence that a substantial or an appreciable number of workmen of the establishment joined in passing the resolution of the exe-outlive committee of the Tobacco Employees' Association espousing the cause of the workman. It is true, as argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Tobacco Employees' Association is not a union of the establishment : nor is there anything to show that a substantial or an appreciable number of workmen of the establishment joined in passing the resolution by which the exeoutive committee of the association took up the cause of the dismissed workman. But, it is not disputed by Sri Srinivasamurthi, for the purpose of this petition, that 25 out of 40 staff workers of the establishment were members of the association and that one of them was a member of the executive committee of the association and joined in passing the resolution. If a representative capacity can be imputed to this member, and it does not appear that there is any reason for not doing so the (spousal of the cause of the dismissed workman by the executive committee of the association will give the dispute the character of an industrial dispute. In the present case, there is much more. In order to make the dispute an industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of a substantial or an appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some expression of the 'collective will' of a substantial or an appreciable number of workmen treating the cause of the dismissed workman as theirs. It is not again disputed that there was a general strike of all workers of the establishment numbering about 2,000, including the forty staff workers. The strike was in connation with a demand for a wage increase but it is admitted that one of the demands was also that the dismissed worker, Subhani, should be reinstated. Witness 1 examined for the management clearly admitted that the workers had refused to give up the strike unless Subhani was reinstated. That clearly was an unequivocal expression of the 'collective will' of the workers. In my opinion the labour court was, therefore right in holding that there was an industrial dispute. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs, Advocate's fee Rs. 100.