NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An identical question arises for consideration in these three writ petitions and as such they are being decided by a common order.

(2.) The management of Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Ltd. and Atherton West and Co. Ltd. two companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was taken over by the Central Government by the Laxmi Ratan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (Takingover of Management) Act, 1976 (No. 98 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 4 (1) of the Act appointed the National Textile Corporation as the Custodian of the two undertakings. The National Textile Corporation in its turn acting under S. 4 (3) of the Act appointed the National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Ltd. as the additional custodian of these undertakings. Subsequently an industrial dispute in respect of Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills was referred by the State Government under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal (III), Kanpur. Two industrial disputes were similarly referred by the State Government in respect of Atherton West and Co. Ltd. to the Labour Court (V) Kanpur. In each of the three cases a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Ltd. that the references were invalid inasmuch as the management of two mills had been taken over by the Central Government and the State Government was not competent to make the references inasmuch as these industries were, on account of their management being taken over by the Central Government, "Carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government" within the meaning of S. 2 (1) (i) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. This preliminary objection was overruled both by the Industrial Tribunal (III), Kanpur, and the Labour Court (V), Kanpur. It is these orders which are sought to be quashed in these writ petitions.

(3.) The only submission which has been made before us by counsel for the petitioners in these three cases is that in view of the management of the two mills being taken over by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act these two mills were industries "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government "within the meaning of S. 2 (1) (i) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and consequently in view of S. 2 (a) (i) read with S. 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , it was the Central Government alone which could have made the references. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether it is right to say that on account of their management being taken over by the Central Government under the Act the two mills can be said to be "industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government." In support of his submission counsel for the petitioners placed before us various provisions of the Act laying down that the management of the undertakings of the two companies vested in the Central Government as also laying down various consequences of such vesting. Considerable emphasis was placed on S. 4 (7) which runs as follows :