- (1.) In this bunch of petitions one of the questions argued before us by the learned counsel for the parties relates to the definition of "appropriate government" set out in Section 2 (1 (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. While it is maintained by the petitioners that the appropriate government would be the central government, the respondents contend that the State government and not the central government would be the appropriate government. Reference is also made to the definition of "appropriate government" set out in Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947.
(2.) This question has been considered by this court in a number of decisions. While considering the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a three-Judge bench in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Workmen held that the appropriate government would be the State government even though the company was wholly owned and controlled by the central government. A two-Judge bench in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar also took the same view which was followed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Model Mills as also in Workers Union v. Food Corpn. of India.
(3.) The question was again considered by a three-Judge bench of this court in Air India Statutory Corpn. v. United Labour Union. In para 28 of the decision it is stated as under "28.From this perspective and on deeper consideration, we are of the considered view that the two-Judge bench in Heavy Engg. case 61 narrowly interpreted the words 'appropriate government' on the common law principles which no longer bear any relevance when it is tested on the anvil of Article 14. It is true that in Hindustan Aeronautics ltd. , R. D. Shetty and Food Corpn. of India cases the ratio of Heavy engg. case formed the foundation. In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. case there was no independent consideration except repetition and approval of the ratio in Heavy Engg. case. It is to reiterate that Heavy Engg. case is based on concession. In R. D. Shetty case the need to dwell in depth into this aspect did not arise but reference was made to the premise of private law interpretation which was relegated to and had given place to constitutional perspectives of Article 14 which is consistent with the view we have stated above. In Food Corpn. of India case the bench proceeded primarily on the premise that warehouses of the Corporation are situated within the jurisdiction of different State governments which led it to conclude that the appropriate government would be the State government. ";