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 first respondent in this petition transgressed their jurisdiction under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, in referring for adjudication 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 Dalavalpurain 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 220 of the Constitution. The office raised an objection that as the grievance put forward by the several petitioners was a violation of the rights of each of persons figuring as petitioners, there have to be as many petitions as there arc 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 had a unity. I have had occasion to deal with this matter in my order in W. P. Nos. 194 and 193 of 1956 S. M. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Dy Commercial tax Officer, Pudukottai, (1956) 2 M.L.J. 23 = 69 L.W. 372. (AIR 1956 Mad 28) (A), arid 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 of 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 ensure to the benefit of the workers or components of each union. "

The latter decision completely covers the present case, (unreported decision in S. R. No. 22276 D/-24-9-1956 (B ). The petitioners will therefore be directed to amend their petition in conformity with this order.

Notes for Orders of Court: Re: S.R. No. 6186 of 1957Writ Petition:

The above S.R., is sought to be filed by five handloom factories against the State of Madras, the Industrial Tribunal and the Secretary, the Dalavaipuram Handloom Workers Union for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the Industrial Tribunal the second respondent herein to forbear from proceeding with the enquiry of I.D. No. 36 of 1955 in pursuance of a notification G.O. No. 2470 of the department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation dated 20th July 1955.

It was pointed out to the Advocate for the petitioners, that separate writ petitions should be filed by each petitioner though the dispute may involve a common question of law in as much as the relief sought in the writ petition would ensure for the benefit of each of the petitioners individually. In this connection, the attention of the Advocate was invited to the decision of Rajagopala Aiyangar, dated 20th February, 1956 in W.P. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1956 holding that neither O. 1 R. 8 Civil Procedure Code, not its principles can be extended to writ petitions and that when several persons are affected by a common order or similar order, each has to file separate and independent petition reported in (1956) 2 M.L.J. 2

3. In the present case, the Government notification referring certain disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act pertains to seven independent handloom factories. No doubt these disputes have been consolidated by the Tribunal under a single number I.D. No. 36 of 1955. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has to make its common award affecting these seven factories of which five have now joined together in filing a single writ petition in the High Court.

The principle that separate petition has to be filed by each of the petitioners has been affirmed by another decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. in S.R. No. 22276 of 1956, where it was conceded that the petitioners by virtue of their separate legal entity have to file separate petitions though a common question of law may be involved affecting these petitioners. Reference is also invited to a decision reported in N.A. Dist. C.C. Stores v. State of Madras (1957) 1 M.L.J. 58 at

59. which contains an observation reiterating the above principle in these words:

The fact that only one notice under S. 80 C.P.C., was given will not show that there was only one transactionEven when appointing ten clerks in an office newly started, ten orders are not always issued but often only one order including them all.

As the Advocate for the petitioners desires that the matter may be posted for orders, the above note is submitted on the question of maintainability of a single writ petition with a court-fee of Rs. 25.