INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. SHAHABUDDIN USMAN RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER in relation to Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Mumbai, the appropriate government is the Central Government or not, is the question that falls for determination in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner - Indian Institute of Technology.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may be briefly summarised. Shri Shahabuddin Usman Raut and Shri Shivmurat Ram, respondent no. 1 and 5 herein and for short called 'the employees' were both serving as security inspectors with the Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Bombay, the petitioner herein and for short called 'the employer'. It is alleged by the employer that both the employees while on duty were involved in the case of assault which resulted not only in criminal case but also the employer charge sheeted them on 10.8.1992 for their misconducts. Both the employees were charge sheeted separately and they denied the charges against them. An enquiry was instituted to inquire into the charges against the employees and the enquiry officer after holding the enquiry and upon conclusion thereof found both the employees guilty of charges and looking to the charges, both of them were awarded punishment of reversion to the post of watchmen Grade I. The employer passed the order of punishment on 22.3.1994. Departmental appeals were preferred by the employees before the Director of Institute and the Director concurred with the punishment awarded to the employees. Second departmental appeal was preferred by the employees under the IIT Rules. However, during the pendency of the said second departmental appeal, the employees jointly filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Bombay under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU & PULP Act") for the unfair labour practices of the employer under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The employer filed a preliminary objection before the Industrial Court raising the plea that the Industrial Court constituted under the MRTU & PULP Act has no jurisdiction since in relation to the employer the appropriate government is the Central Government. Thus, the plea was raised by the employer that the complaint was not maintainable under the MRTU & PULP Act and that the Industrial Court constituted by the State Government under the MRTU & PULP Act had no jurisdiction. The said objection raised by the employer has been over ruled by the Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 19.10.1994. While overruling the objection raised by the employer, the Industrial Court principally assigned two reasons, (i) that it is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry of the Central Government to attract the provisions of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act but it is necessary that it should be specified for the purpose of Section 2(a)(i) as a controlled industry by the Central Government before the Central Government could become the appropriate government within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) and since the employer is not specified as a controlled industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in relation to the employer, the Central Government cannot be appropriate government and (ii) that in Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1984 in respect of the dispute between one Shri S.Z. Choudhary and A.K. De, Director, IIT, Bombay and others, the Apex Court held that in relation to the employer the Central Government is the appropriate government.

(3.) AT the outset, I may observe that the order referred to by the Industrial Court passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.410 of 1984 (Shri S.Z. Choudhary and A.K. De, Director; IIT, Bombay and others) has no relevance and in the said judgment the Apex Court has not held that in relation to the employer IIT Bombay the appropriate government is the State Government. The inference drawn by the Industrial Court from the said judgment that since the Apex Court remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, it may be presumed that the Labour Court has jurisdiction and that in relation to IIT Bombay the appropriate government is the State Government is wholly misconceived. The order passed by the Apex Court in S.Z. Chaudhary reference of which has been made by the Industrial Court in its order reads thus :