HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. NASHIK WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated March 2, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3562/1997. The relevant facts are that a complaint was filed before the Labour Court by Nashik Workers Union, a registered trade union under the MRTU & PULP Act which is the State legislation, seeking certain relief against the appellant. That complaint was disposed of by the Labour Court by its order dated August 8, 1994. The Labour Court held that the appellant is guilty of adopting unfair labour practice, directed the appellant to reinstate the employees whose names were mentioned in the annexure of the complaint with full back wages. That order was challenged in Revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. The order of the Industrial Court is dated July 8, 1997. Against the order of both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, Writ petition No. 3562/1997 was filed. That petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated March 2, 2001. The learned single Judge by his order set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The learned single Judge though found in favour of the appellant on merits of the controversy, the learned single Judge negated the contention of the appellant that in relation to the appellant the appropriate government was the Central Government and therefore, complaint under MRTU & PULP Act is not maintainable. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that in relation to the appellant, State Government is the appropriate government.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits 3 Judges bench of the Supreme Court. By its order in Civil Appeal No. 3659/2002 dated July 8, 2002, in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v. Canteen K. Sangh, 2003 1 LLJ 494, has held that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to the appellant company. Learned Counsel submits that the Supreme Court has held Central Government to be appropriate government in relation to the appellant in relation to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He submits that the definition of the term appropriate Government under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is identical to the definition of the term appropriate Government found in Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that the same definition of the appropriate Government to be found in the Industrial Disputes Act has been adopted in MRTU & PULP Act. He therefore, submits that the learned single Judge could not have held that the State Government is the appropriate government in relation to the appellant company. He further submits that in recording the finding that Central Government is the appropriate Government, the Supreme Court has relied on Constitutional Bench judgment of itself in the case of Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers, 2001 AIR(SC) 3527. He further submits that as the definition of the term appropriate Government found in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour Act are identical, the learned single Judge could not have taken the view that under Industrial Disputes Act in relation to the appellant the appropriate Government is the State Government. He also placed on record the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5655/2008 dated December 4, 2008 where the Supreme Court in relation to the proceeding under UP Industrial Disputes Act relying on its judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers as also on the judgment in the case of appellant company Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., has held that the appropriate government is the Central Government. The order of the Supreme Court reads as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel submits that the definition of the term appropriate Government in the Industrial Disputes Act and the UP Industrial Disputes Act is identical. He submits that in view of the order of the Supreme Court debate is not possible on the question as to which is the appropriate Government in relation to the appellant company.