PADAM BAHADUR KHANKA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 17th December, 1984 passed by the fourth respondent being the Member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, is under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The only point that has been canvassed before me by Mr. Choudhary, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is as to whether the Central Government or the State Government would be "appropriate Government" in respect of respondent No. 1 National Institute for Training in Industrial Engineering Society. In the submission of Mr. Choudhary, the conclusion arrived at by the fourth respondent, that appropriate Government in this case is the Central Government is wrong and the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. The submission is that the Society's activities are carried on in Bombay ana, therefore, "appropriate Government" would be the State Government. Mr. Choudhary further submitted that once a society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, its day to day business is carried out under the Memorandum of Association and, as such, the Central Government loses its control over the society and, therefore, "appropriate Government" would be the State Government in respect of respondent No. 1. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhary relied upon the following judgments:

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the fourth respondent came to the conclusion that the first respondent is a Government of India project started with the assistance of the United Nations through International Labour Organisation. It is a training institute which is fully financed by the Central Government and the same was established and looked after by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Central Government. The activities of imparting education were carried out by and on behalf of and under the authority of the Central Government, further held the fourth respondent. He made a reference to Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Memorandum of Association of the first respondent to point out that the first respondent was completely under the control of the Central Government. Now, despite Mr. Choudhary's taking me through the various other clauses of the Memorandum of Association and the rules governing the first respondent, he has not been able to point out as to how the first respondent is not controlled by the Central Government. As per Section 2(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Central Government would be the "appropriate Government" in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. On the facts of our case, it is held that the first respondent is completely under the control of the Central Government. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Choudhary are not relevant in this case because, they are based purely in the facts and circumstances obtaining therein. Mr. Choudhary has not been able to satisfy me that the facts and circumstances obtaining in these cases were the same, similar or identical as in our case. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Choudhary are of no use to him. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is based purely on facts, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.