- (1.) The Rehabilitation Industries Corporation (RIC) was incorporated on 6th April, 1959 with an object to provide employment to the refugees. This industry was wholly owned by the Central Govt. By a notification issued in exercise of Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act the Central Govt. had delegated its power to the State Govt. which is Annexure "F" to the petition.
(2.) Mr. Manik Das, learned counsel contends that the power has been delegated under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the State Govt. which becomes the appropriate Govt. and the Central Govt. ceased to be the appropriate Govt. by reason of such delegation. As such, until and unless the delegation is withdrawn by a notification in the manner, the Central Govt. cannot exercise any authority as appropriate Govt. in respect of RIC. He contends that without revoking the order of delegation contained in annexure "F" the Central Govt. sought to use the power of appropriate Govt. in granting approval to the prayer for closure of RIC which is also subject matter of an industrial dispute referred to by the State Govt. as an appropriate Govt. to the Industrial Tribunal and the said reference is pending. Therefore, Mr. Das contends that the approval granted for the closure is a nullity and void ab initio. However, since the question with regard to the merit of the approval for closure is pending decision before the Tribunal therefore he has not made any submission with regard to the validity of approval except on the question of jurisdiction.
(3.) Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent assisted by Mr. Gupta submits that by reason of Section 25-L Chapter V the Central Govt. is the appropriate Govt. in terms of clause (b) thereof since in the present case the Central Government holds 100% share of RIC. The said character cannot be taken away simply by reason of a delegation made under Section 39. He also refers to annexure "F" and points out that the delegation was not an absolute delegation. It provided that the said power can also be exercised by the Central Govt. and the delegation was subjected to the condition that Central Govt. shall exercise all the powers under the said Act and rules made thereunder as and when it considers necessary to do so. According to him the order of delegation itself is reserved for the Central Govt. being the appropriate Govt. to exercise such power at any point of time whenever it deems fit and that this power can be exercised both by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. By reason thereof by a legal fiction though the State Government was not appropriate Govt. it became an appropriate Govt. under the said delegation. It is only for delegation that notification is necessary but there is no necessity of having regard to the condition in which the delegation was made to invoke the same for exercising the power under Section 25(O). Mr. Ghosh has also relied on the decision in the case of Huth v. Clarke,1890 25 QB 391, Godawari S. Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 AIR(SC) 1404 and Gwalior Rayon Mills v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1974 AIR(SC) 1660 at page 1673 (Paras 38 and 39). According to him, the delegation does not divest the original power or abrogates the original power.;