Mohan, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Delay condoned.
(2.) The appellant is a union of workmen employed in the establishments of respondent No. 1 at Sankarnagar in the State of Tamil Nadu. Respondent No. 1 is a company with major financial input by various financial institutions in the country. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are contractors who were employed by the respondent No. 1 to do various jobs. At the relevant time these respondents employed 300 and odd workers. The services of these workers were terminated. They claimed to have worked continuously for a period of over 10 years. Inasmuch as they were neither paid the same wages nor were they allowed the same working conditions allowed by the principal employer, namely, respondent No. 1 to its own workmen. The appellant union raised demands to make contract labour permanent as mandated by law by removing the intermediary contractors. The demands were not complied with. Therefore, a dispute was raised. Conciliation proceedings took place on various dates. Ultimately on 22-9-86 a failure report by Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, was submitted. On consideration of the report and the other relevant facts a notification was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 23rd September, 1987 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the dispute between the union and the management of India Cements contractors relating to non-employment of 300 workers be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madurai. Pending adjudication of main dispute, the management (respondent No. 1) preferred an Interlocutory Application for determination as a preliminary issue that the reference by the State of Tamil Nadu is bad since the appropriate authority in relation to the cement industry is the Central Government. The Principal Labour Court, Madurai, allowed the application by the impugned order dated 28-8-91 and terminated the proceedings. It is under these circumstances the Special Leave Petition came to be filed after a delay of 223 days. Notices were issued on 25-9-92 both on the SLP as well on the application for condonation of delay.
(3.) The argument on behalf of the appellant is the finding of the Labour Court that it is a controlled industry by the Central Government is incorrect. Equally, the finding that in view of the application of the Goverment of India dated 15-4-88 that cement industry is a controlled industry under the Act and, therefore, the reference by Central Government is bad and cannot be supported. The question of delegation of powers to the State Government does not arise. The powers exercised by the Central Government under the Act are equally exercisable by the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.;