SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition is that the respondent/workman entered into an industrial dispute contending that he is entitled to the post and pay of technical supervisor since April, 1997. The workman claimed that since 1998 though the work of technical supervisor was being taken but without corresponding designation or pay -scale. The petitioner filed his objections stating that the respondent -workman was appointed as a daily rated employee and the petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the labour dispute.
(2.) IT was contended that since the petitioner -company was owned and controlled by the Central Government and was functioning under its authority, the appropriate Government was the Central Government and the reference by the State Government was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The Labour Court without adverting to the preliminary objection rendered the award holding that since April 1997, the respondent workman was working as technical supervisor, however, the workman was entitled to commensurate designation and pay -scale from the date of reference i.e. 10.8.2000. It was directed that the workman would continue on the post until regular promotions is made by the Management. Petitioner is assailing the award dated 27.06.2003 in the present petition.
(3.) THE controversy as to whether the petitioner, i.e., the British India Corporation Ltd. is a Central Government undertaking or not was considered at length by this Court in British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2011 2 AWC 1316. The Court, after considering all aspect of the matter held: "It is obvious that under the authority of the Act, the Central Government took over the company to ensure "proper management of the affairs of the Company and the continuity and development of the production of goods" and for "an effective control over the affairs of the Company". Thus, there can be no doubt that the industry is being carried on by and under the authority of the Central Government, therefore, even according to the ratio of the Steel Authority of India case, the 'appropriate Government' in the case of the petitioner would be the Central Government. It would be irrelevant even if some shares were held by the State Bank of India and other statutory authorities because even in their cases the appropriate Government would be the Central Government and there is nothing on record to show that any of the statutory authorities are running the industry." The Court in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India's case held that the appropriate Government in the case of British India Corporation Ltd. is the Central Government.;