Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the managements of five handloom factories praying for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition or other appropriate writ directing the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, from proceeding with an enquiry which has been referred to this body for adjudication. The complaint of the several petitioners is that the State Government who have been impleaded as the 1st respondent in this petition transgressed their jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in referring for adjudicating to the Industrial Tribunal certain disputes which were said to exist between them and the persons who they say are not their workmen. There were as many as seven establishments named in the reference between whom and the Dalavaipuram Workers' Union the dispute was said to exist, and the reference made was a single one. These petitioners have joined together and filed a single petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The office raised an objection that as the grievance put forward by the several petitioners was violation of the rights of each of the persons figuring as petitioners, there have to be as many petitions as there are petitioners and that a single petition is incompetent. As the learned advocate for the petitioners contested this position, the matter has been placed before me for decision.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners who urged that as the reference by the Government, which was impugned in the petition, was a single one the petitioners were entitled to file a single writ petition but I am not persuaded that this contention is correct. Notwithstanding that the reference was one, what is sought to be ventilated in the petition is the right of each petitioner to carry on its business without the interference by the State Government or the Tribunal acting under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. That the right whose violation is alleged is an individual right which inheres in each petitioner cannot be disputed and merely because similar rights possessed by the other persons are also violated it does not follow that their grievances have a unity. I have had occasion to deal with this matter in my order in W.P. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1956. S. M. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pudukottai : (1956)2MLJ23 , and in my judgment the present case falls within the rule I have laid down there. I might also add that this rule was followed by me in another writ petition where the petition was by five labour 'Unions who filed a single application complaining the action ot the Government. I there held:
Though the Government as against whom the Writ of Mandamus is sought and the employer are units, still as different legal entities, viz., the several unions are seeking reliefs though the relief might be similar-each union has to file a petition.-The relief if obtained would enure to the benefit of the workers or components of each union.
3. The latter decision completely covers the present case. (Unreported decision dated 24th September, 1956, in S.R. 22276). The Petitioners will therefore be directed to amend their petition in conformity with this order.