Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) By this writ petition dated March 22, 2005 the petitioner, a Government of India undertaking and hereinafter referred to as "the company", is questioning the order No. 137 of the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal made in Case No. VIII - 20/95 on September 10, 2004 rejecting its an application dated September 15, 1999 (filed on September 17, 1999).
(2.) The State Government made an order dated February 7, 1995 referring, under section 10 read with section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Tribunal an existing dispute between the company and its workman, the third respondent. The issue referred was: "Whether the dismissal of service of Shri Pradip Kr. Ganguly w.e.f. 4.4.94 is justified. What relief, if any, is he entitled to?" By filing the application dated September 15, 1999 the company wanted the Tribunal to hold that since the State Government was not the appropriate Government, and the Central Government was only the appropriate Government, the reference made by order dated February 7, 1995 was not maintainable. By an order dated October 25, 2000 the Tribunal allowed that application and held that the reference, having not been made by the Central Government, the appropriate Government, was not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, the third respondent moved this Court by filing W.P. No. 3777(W) of 2001, which was allowed by an order dated March 21, 2002. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, and it was directed to give a fresh decision in me company's application dated September 15,1999, after ascertaining whether there was any conferment of authority on the company by the Central Government to carry on the industry in question. Accordingly the application was again heard by the Tribunal, and by the impugned order it rejected it and fixed date for argument on validity of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal rejected the application holding that the company failed to produce anything to show that it was carrying on business under the authority of the Central Government. The Tribunal, however, held that the company had been able to establish that the Central Government was exercising controlling authority over it. It was, however, never the company's case that the industry was being carried on by the Central Government.
(3.) By order dated July 14, 2005 the writ petition was admitted, and an interim order was made restraining the respondents in the case including the Tribunal from proceeding any further on the basis of the impugned order dated September 10, 2004. The third respondent, the workman, is contesting the case. Relying on the findings of the Tribunal that the company established that the Central Government was exercising control and authority over it, Mr. Ghosh, its Counsel, has submitted that in view of the Apex Court decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & Anr. vs. Hindustan Aero Canteen K. Sangh & Ors., 2003(1) LLJ 494, there was absolutely no reason for the Tribunal to hold that with respect to the industrial dispute it was the State Government, and not the Central Government, that was competent to make the reference as the appropriate Government. The question that therefore has arisen is what is meant by the expression "any industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government" used in section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is to be noted that section 2(a) defines the expression "appropriate Government". According to the definition, appropriate Government means, inter alia, in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, the Central Government; and in relation to any industrial dispute other than one falling within the meaning of section 2(a)(i), the State Government. Here the company's case is that it has been carrying on the industry under the authority of the Central Government. It, however, could not produce before the Tribunal any authority given to it by the Central Government to carry on the industry. What it rather established by adducing evidence is that the Central Government was exercising control and authority over it. This, according to Mr. Ghosh, was enough to hold that here the Central Government was the appropriate Government. On these facts, Counsel advanced their respective arguments citing to me quite a few authorities to show what the expression concerned actually means. I think it will be convenient to deal with them in chronological order.;