- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Labour Court, dated 30. 3. 91 annexure-2 to this writ petition.
(2.) BY the said order, the Labour court has rejected the reference made to it under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the reference could only have been made by the Central Government and not the State Government. The petitioner was an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation and he raised an industrial dispute regarding the termina tion of his service. The said dispute was referred under Section 4-K to the Labour Court, which rejected it on the ground that Indian Oil Corporations a Company which is carried out by or under authority of the Central Government and, hence, only the Central Government could have made the reference. This view, in my opinion, is incor rect. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdur Union v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 82, even if all the shares of the company are owned by the Central Government it cannot be said that the company is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. A company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders and hence unless it is a company mentioned in Section 2 (a) (i) o' the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government would not be the central Government but the State Government. It may be mentioned that sub sequent to the impugned order, the petitioner approached the Central Govern ment which refused to make a reference and I upheld the said order of Central Govern ment in Writ Petition No. 31379 of 1993 decided on 23. 8. 96 vide annexure- 6 to this writ petition.
(3.) IN these circumstances, I set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 30. 3. 1991 an direct the Labour Court to decide the adjudication case No. 144 of 1989 in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is allowed No order as to cost Petition allowed. .;