BHEL THUPPURAVU THOZHILALAR SANGAM BHELLIMITED RANIPET Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED RANIPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the appellant filed the writ petitions seeking implementation of the notification, dated September 19, 1988, issued by the Tamil Nadu Government under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the petitioner could not have foreseen that very notification would be struck down by the Apex Court some ten years later which in fact has happened. Th notification was set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of L&T Mc. Neil Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu 2001-I-LLJ-735.

(2.) That judgment of the Supreme Court was not available when the learned single Judge decided the matter. The learned single Judge held that as the respondent-employer is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of India, appropriate Government is the Central Government and therefore, the notification issued by the State Government not being binding on the said undertaking, the petitioner was not entitled to any mandamus directing the employer to implement the notification issued by the State Government. For so holding the learned Judge relied upon the law as it then stood and as reflected in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 (9) SCC 377 : 1997-I-LLJ-1113.

(3.) Subsequently the law laid down in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (supra) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers 2001-II-LLJ-1087. As a result of that judgment it is now clear that even in respect of undertakings owned by the Government of India which are registered as companies, the appropriate Government is the State Government and not the Central Government.