R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) THE common question of law which has arisen in these two appeals (L.P. As. 636 and 637 of 1973) is whether the State Government or the Central Government is the "appropriate Government" within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the 1947 Act) in respect of the disputes between the workmen and the management of the Khadi Ashram, G.T. Road, Panipat, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which society has been recognised as a Khadi institution by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) established under Section 4 of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 1856 Act).
(2.) THREE different references (Nos. 55 of 1971, and 9 and 36 of 1972) were made by the State of Haryana to the Industrial Tribunal Haryana, Faridabad, in respect of different claims of some of the workmen of the Appellant. In all the three references a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Appellant that the reference was invalid for want of jurisdiction as the appropriate Government in the matter of the Appellant's establishment was the Central Government and not the State Government. By his order, dated July 21, 1972, Shri O.P. Sharma, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, agreed with that objection and held that the appropriate Government for referring the disputes in Question for adjudication is the Central Government and not the State Government as the business of the Appellant is carried on under the authority of the Central Government, inasmuch as the Appellant industry functions by virtue of a certificate issued under, the authority of the Commission, which authority is reviewed from time to time and without which authority the Appellant industry cannot legally function. It was observed that the Commission is entirely controlled by the Central Government in the matter of its constitution and working, and in the matter of achievement of its constitution and objects, and this leads to the conclusion that the' Appellant is engaged in an industry which to all intents and purposes is running under the authority of the Central Government, and that being so, the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act is the Central Government and not the State Government. The workmen at whose instance reference had been made to the State Government filed Civil Writ 3066 of 1972, for quashing the order of the Labour Tribunal to the above effect and for directing the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal to proceed with the case on merits. In reference No. 193 of 1970, similarly made by the State Government of Haryana to the Labour Court at Rohtak, the same objection was raised by the management (the Appellant) before Shri P.N. Thukral, Presiding Officer of that Court. By his order dated May 13, 1971, Shri Thukral repelled an additional objection of the Appellant to the effect that the reference in question was barred on principles of res judicata, and directed the parties to produce such evidence as they desired on the question of the validity of the reference. The Appellant filed Civil Writ 1018 of 1973 against that decision.
(3.) BOTH those petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court (M.R. Sharma, J.) on August 13, 1973. The learned Judge allowed Civil Writ 3066 of 1972, following his own earlier judgment in Messrs Punjab Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh, Adampur Doaba, District Jullundur v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (XIII) 1973 Curr. L.J. 541, wherein it had been held by him that the said Khadi institution in Punjab, which was working under a similar authorisation from the Commission, was not a department of the Central Government. For the same reason Civil Writ 1018 of 1973, was dismissed. L.P.A. 636 of 1973, has been filed against the decision of the learned Judge allowing the writ petition of the workmen, and L.P.A. 637 of 1973, has been filed against the order of Sharma, J., dismissing the writ petition of the present Appellant. The contention of the Appellant in both the cases is that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the Appellant institution, and therefore, each of the two references made by the State of Haryana should be held to be without jurisdiction and should be annulled.;