BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for certiorari to quash G. O. Ms. No. 1482 (Labour) dated 4th July, 1984, in and by which the Government of Tamil Nadu directed a reference of the dispute between the workmen and the management of the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , Ranipet, North Arcot District in respect of bonus for the accounting years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : The Supervisor Union, BHEL/bap, Ranipet, raised an industrial dispute against the management of Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet over the issue of payment of bonus for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Conciliatory talks were held by the Commissioner of Labour in this dispute. The other unions functioning in the establishment, viz. , Boiler Auxiliaries Project, Anna Workers Union, Ranipet also participated in the conciliatory talks. Since no settlement was possible the Commissioner of Labour sent a conciliation failure report to the Government. Thereupon, considering the report and other relevant materials, the Government issued the Government Order, cited above. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) (i) The only argument of Mr. Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is that the appropriate Government as far as the writ petitioner is concerned, is only the Government of India and therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu has no competency to issue the order referring the matter for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, this is an industry carried on by the Government itself. No doubt the writ petitioner is incorporated under the Companies Act. Notwithstanding such an incorporation, by reason of which it acquires a legal status, it is still the Government of India, which is running the industry. This is for the reason that all the shares are owned by the Government of India. The company carries on various types of business, including the manufacturing and marketing of Power Station equipment, Boilers, etc. For this purpose they have manufacturing Units all over India in places like Bhopal, Hardwar, Jhansi, Hyderabad, Tiruchi and Bangalore. They also have other establishments situate at various cities in the various states of India. If, therefore petitioner is an all India company set up by the Central Government, to confer power upon the State Government will run contrary to the intention of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact under the cognate enactment, viz. , Industrial Disputes Act 1948, the Standing Orders of the petitioner's establishment were certified in 1982 only by the Regional Commissioner, Central, who is an authority constituted by the appropriate Government under S. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of this submission, learned counsel first cites Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar [1969-II L. L. J. 549], in which the question arose as to the meaning of the phrase 'under the authority of the Central Government'. As regards the first limb, viz. , 'by the Central Government' it cannot be construed to be an authority because both in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court that point was conceded. (ii) Instead of the Government carrying on the commercial activity through one of its departments, merely because it carries on those activities through a company or a corporation, it cannot be said that the industry is not carried on by the Central Government. The formation of the company is only a matter through which the industry is carried on. Therefore, the general principle that by reason of incorporation of the Companies Act, it becomes a legal entity and therefore it is not the Government of India, is not the test to be applied. According to the learned counsel when the ruling under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India goes to the extent of saying, 'notwithstanding such incorporation under the statute or under the Companies Act, or again under the Societies Registration Act', they would be deemed to be authorities within the said Article. The rulings cited in this connection are Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India [1975-I L. L. J. 374] and Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India [1979-II L. L. J. 217]. (iii) Again in Som Prakash v. Union of India [1981-I L. L. J. 79] which dealt with a case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and also in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujip [1981-I L. L. J. 103], this interpretation under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India was adopted. In Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Model Mills, Nagpur [1984-II L. L. J. 507], which was a case under S. 18a of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, concerning 'sick mill' this aspect has been dealt with, In C. V. Raman and other v. Bank of Indian Southern Region [1984-II L. L. J. 34] a Division Bench of this Court, on an analysis of the entire case law came to the conclusion that the intervention of the statutory personality will be of no consequence. In this case, even factually there are very many controls exercised by the Government of India. For instance, in the Articles of Association Art. 7 says, the appointment of Directors is by the President of India, as defined under Art. 1. It is conceded by the other side that all the shares are owned only by the Government of India. Having regard to the manner of control exercised by the Government, excluding the appointment of Directors, this is a clear case in which it is impossible to hold that it is not an industry carried on by the Central Government. Therefore, the State Government will have no jurisdiction whatever.