JUDGMENT
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned senior advocate for the petitioner Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and Mr. N. Majarbuyan, learned counsel for the respondent/employee.
2. The respondent Samsul Uddin Mazumdar an ex-employee of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) raised an industrial dispute whereby vide Annexure 2 dated August 12, 1999, the Central Government made the following reference under the Industrial Disputes Act:
“Whether the action of the Management of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., in denying the employment to Shri Samsul Uddin Mazumdar verbally w. e.f. April 25, 1992 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
3. The Corporation raised a preliminary objection before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in the related Reference Case No. 27(c)/99 to the effect that the Central Government is not the appropriate authority and as such the reference is bad in law and vide impugned order dated July 16, 2000, the learned Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection and hence the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. The contention of the Corporation is that although the Corporation is a Central Government undertaking, there is no notification under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) and as such the appropriate Government in relation to the Corporation shall be the State Government and not the Central Government.
5. The contention of the respondent/ workman on the other hand is that the Corporation was established by the Government of India and hence the Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’.
6. The learned Tribunal disposed of the objection raised, by making the following observation:
“I have carefully considered the submission raised by the learned advocate for both the parties. So far as making of reference by the Central Government is concerned, I find that none of the parties has been able to produce any law to show whether State Government or the Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’. No Government notification is also placed before me to show which of the Governments is the appropriate Government. In view of this without recording evidence from the side of management, it cannot be ascertained which is the appropriate Government.”
There is no dispute at the Bar that the Corporation is a Government of India undertaking. It is also not in dispute that there is no notification under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act.
7. Mr. Sharma, learned senior advocate appearing for the Corporation has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Its Workmen AIR 1960 SC 692 : 1960-I-LLJ-262 and Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Workmen AIR I960 SC 812: 1960-11-LLJ-272.
8. In Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. ‘s case (supra) the Apex Court observed as follows 1960-I-LLJ-262atp. 265:
“The last contention urged is that the reference is invalid inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not competent to refer the present dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act. The argument is that the Textile Industry has been included at serial No. 23 in the First Schedule to the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951) and as such the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is urged that the present dispute could have been validly referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal only by the Central Government. Section 2(a)(i)’. inter alia defines the appropriate Government as meaning, in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. The question which arises is : has the textile industry been specified as controlled industry in this’ behalf by the Central Government? It is true that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions of Act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled industry; but that would not be enough to attract the application of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. What this latter provision requires is that the Central Government must specify ‘in this behalf that the industry in question is a controlled industry; in other words the specification must be made by the Central Government by reference to, and for the purpose of, the provisions of the Act in order that the Central Government may itself become the appropriate Government qua such industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is conceded by Mr. Sastri that no such specification has been made by the Central Government. Indeed, we ought to add in fairness to Mr. Sastri that he did not very seriously press this point.”
9. In Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd.’s case (supra) the Apex Court had this to say 1960-II-LLJ-272at p. 273:
“So far as the question of the competence of the reference is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it. A similar question was raised before this Court in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen C.A. No. 355 of 1958, dated February 12, 1960: AIR 1960 SC 692 : 1960-I-LLJ-262, and it was held there on the language of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that before that provision could apply to a controlled industry there must be a notification by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(a)(i) is in these terms:
‘”Appropriate Government” means in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil field or a major port, the Central Government.’
The argument is that as sugar is a controlled industry under the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, No. 65 of 1951, the appropriate Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) with reference to the sugar industry is the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the words ‘concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government’ appearing in Section 2(a)(i). It is true that sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 but that in our opinion does not conclude the matter. In order that the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i). This in our opinion is obvious from the words ‘controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government’ appearing in Section 2(a)(i). It is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry to attract this provision of Section 2(a)(i); it is further necessary that it should be specified in this behalf, namely for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i), as a controlled industry by the Central Government, before the Central Government can become the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i). We may in this connection refer to Firebricks & Potteries Ltd. v. Firebricks & Potteries Ltd. Workers Union Ltd. 1956-I-LLJ-571, where the same view has been taken. We are of opinion that that is the correct meaning of these words appearing in Section 2(a)(i), as already held in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra). The objection that the reference was not competent therefore fails.”
10. A similar question was raised in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar ATR 1970 SC 82 : 1969 (1) SCC 765 : 1969-II-LLJ-548 and although the said company was established by the Central Government, the Apex Court held that the industrial dispute concerning the industry carried by the Heavy Engineering Corporation was not one concerning the industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate 5 Government for making the reference under Section 10 was the State Government and not the Central Government.
11. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that in almost all the references that have come up from time to time against the Corporation, the references were made by the State Government and this is the only case where the reference is made by the Central Government. In absence of any notification under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, we hold that the reference was not made by the competent authority and as such it is not valid under law and hence the Tribunal cannot enter into the reference and as the reference is not maintainable the entire proceeding stands quashed.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of.