Siddhartha Varma - (1.) The respondent no. 3 in the instant writ petition raised an industrial dispute against the petitioners claiming that he was employed as peon by the petitioners on 22.2.1993 and that his services were illegally terminated on 7.10.1998. He raised an industrial dispute wherein he prayed for reinstatement with all back wages and continuity of service. The claim of the respondent no. 3 was contested by the petitioners and thereafter an award, which is under challenged in this writ petition, dated 22.1.2010 was passed. The petitioners have challenged the instant award on the very same grounds on which they had opposed the claim of the respondent no. 3 before the Labour Tribunal. The petitioners assailed the award essentially on three grounds: I. The petitioners were not an industry. II. There existed no relationship of an employee and an employer between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners. III. The State Government was not the competent authority to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal when the petitioners were a body which found their existence on account of a central enactment of the Parliament.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the first instance, before it was seen as to whether the petitioners were an industry or whether there existed a relationship of an employer and an employee between the petitioners and the respondent no. 3, the question as to whether the State Government was authorized to refer the matter to the Labour Tribunal or whether it was the Central Government which ought to have made the reference had to be seen.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were an autonomous body which came into existence on account of the Act No. 38 of 1949 enacted by the Parliament of India, and, therefore, the appropriate Government as per sub section 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be the Central Government.;