CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the following two cognate questions arise for determination: (i) In a dispute relating to bonus between the management of a company and its employees in its branch office, if such branch office is situate within Mysore State but the head office of that Comnany is situate outside Mysore State, has the Government of Mysore jurisdiction to refer under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, such dispute for adjudication? and (ii) In a dispute relating to bonus between the management of a companv and its employees in its factory situate within Mysore State, if the registered office of that company is situate outside Mysore State, has the Government of Mysore jurisdiction to refer under S. 10 of the Industrial disputes Act such dispute for adjudication? on the above two questions, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) has held that the Government of mysore has no jurisdiction. ( 2 ) THE material facts in these two petitions are briefly these. In W. P. No. 572 of 1369, the employer is Remington Rand of India Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as Remington Company ). Its head office is at Calcutta and it has 32 branches in different States in India, including the branch at bangalore. It would appear that it prepares and maintains a consolidated balance sheet and profit and loss account for the Companv as a whole including all its branches and that no separate balance sheet and profit and loss account are maintained in respect of any individual branch. The Management of Remington Company declared a bonus to all its employees, representing 3-1/2 months' basic salary or wages for the year 1964. The employees of its Bangalore branch demanded a bonus representing 3-1/2 months' total emoluments. The Government of Mysore referred under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for adjudication by the Tribunal that dispute relating to bonus. Before the Tribunal, the management raised a preliminary objection that the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction to refer such dispute and that it was only the government of West Bengal wherein the head office of that Company is situate, that had jurisdiction to refer such dispute for adjudication. Before the Tribunal, the management raised a preliminary objection that the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction to refer such dispute and that it was only the government of West Bengal wherein the head office of that Company is situate, that had jurisdiction to refer such dispute for adjudication. The tribunal tried as a preliminary issue the question of jurisdiction of the government of Mysore to make such reference and held that the Government of Mysore' had no jurisdiction. In W. P. No. 572 of 1969, the employees of the Bangalore branch of Remington Company have assailed that decision of the Tribunal. ( 3 ) IN WP. No. 54 of 1971, the employer is Gokak Falls Mills Ltd. which has its registered office at Bombay and its textile mills at Gokak Falls within mysore Stats. It would appear that that company prepares and maintains a balance sheet and profit and loss account for the Company as a whole including its textile mills and that no separate balance sheet and profit and loss account are prepared for the textile mills. Between the management and the employees in the textile mills there is a dispute regarding the quantum of bonus payable to such employees. The Government of Mysore referred under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes act, that dispute to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the Management raised a preliminary objection that as the registered office of that Company is situate in Maharashtra Statp. the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction to refer that dispute and that it was only the Government of Maharashtra that had the jurisdiction to make such reference. The tribunal tried as a preliminary issue the question of the jurisdiction of the Government of Mysore to refer that dispute and held that the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction as the registered office of that company is situate outside Mysore State. In WP. No. 54 of 1971 the employeees of the said textile mills, represented by their Union, have challenged the decision of the Tribunal. ( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the reasoning of the Tribunal and the contentions of the parties in these petitions, it is useful to set out certain provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus act) and of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the reasoning of the Tribunal and the contentions of the parties in these petitions, it is useful to set out certain provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus act) and of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Bonus Act, as stated in its long title, provides for payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments and for matters connected therewith. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 provides that that Act, save as otherwise provided therein, shall apply to (a) every factory; and (b) every other establishment in which 20 or more presons are employed on rny day during an accounting year. Sec. 2 contains certain definitions. Sub-sec. (5) of that section defines "appropriate Government" as meaning: (i) In relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), is the Central Government; the Central Government. (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the state in which that other establishment is situate. The principal part of S. 3 provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or undertaking or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or undertaking or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for the purpose of computation of the bonus payable under that Act. ( 5 ) THE proviso to that section treats every such department undertaking or branch as a separate establishment if a separate balance sheet and profit and loss account are preparted and maintained for any such department, undertaking or branch for any accounting year unless such department, undertaking or branch was, immediately before the commencement of that accounting year, treated as part of the establishment for the purpose of computation of bonus. Ss. Ss. 22 provides, inter alia, that where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under that Act or with respect to the application of that Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and that the provisions of that Act, or, as the case may be, such law shall save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly. ( 6 ) SUB-SEC. (1) of S. 34 provides inter alia, that save as otherwise provided in that section, the provisions of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Ses. 39 provides that save as otherwise provided, the provisions of that Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial disputes Act or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. Clause (a) of Sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the term "appropriate Government". Sub-clause (i) of that Clause provides, inter alia, that in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by, or under the authority of, the Central Government or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in that behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning certain statutory corporations established by parliamentary enactments or a Banking or Insurance Companv, a mine, an oil field or a major port, the Central Government shall be the " appropriate Government". Sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) provides that in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government shall be the "appropriate Government". Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides, inter alia, that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court or a Tribunal for adjudication. ( 7 ) SUB-SEC. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides, inter alia, that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court or a Tribunal for adjudication. ( 7 ) SUB-SEC. (1a) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides, inter alia, that where the Central Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute involves any question of national importance or is of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State or likely to be interested in, or affected by such dispute and that the dispute s should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal, then the Central government may. whether or not it is the appropriate Government in relation to that dispute, refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected therewith to a National Tribunal for adjudication. The reasoning of the Tribunal for holding that the Government of mysore had no jurisdiction to refer the aforesaid two disputes for adjudication, is on the following lines: The Bonus Act is a self-contained and exhaustive enactment in regard to bonus. In S. 2 (5) of that Act, the definition of the expression '' appropriate Government" is somewhat different from the definition of that expression in the Industrial Disputes act. Where a dispute relating to bonus has to be referred for adjudication, for determining which is the appropriate Government competent to make such reference, the definition of " appropriate Government" contained in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus Act should be looked into and not 'the definition of that expression in the Industrial Disputes Act. In S. 2 (5) of the bonus Act, the expression "appropriate Government" is defined in relation to an establishment and not in relation to an industry or an industrial dispute. The principal part of S. 3 of the Bonus Act provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or undertakings or branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments, undertakings or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for the purpose of computation of the bonus payable under that Act. The principal part of S. 3 of the Bonus Act provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or undertakings or branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments, undertakings or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for the purpose of computation of the bonus payable under that Act. If a company has several branches, its head office and all these branches together should be regarded as constituting a single establishment and that establishment should be regarded as being situate at the place where such head office is situate. Likewise, where a company owns a factory or factories, such factory or factories whereever situate, together with its registered office, should be regarded as constituting one establishment, and such establishment should be regarded as being situate at the place where such registered office is situated. If a dispute regarding bonus arises between the management of a company and its employees in any branch or in any factory wherever situate, the appropriate Government' to refer such dispute for adjudication is the government of the State in which the head office or the registered office of that company is situate, unless the Central Government is the appropriate Government. So runs the reasoning of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) MR. M. C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP. No. 572 of 1969. assailed the above reasoning of the Tribunal. His contentions were briefly as follows : The Bonus Act does not itself contain provisions for investigation and settlement of a dispute between an employer and his employees with respect to bonus. S. 22 of that Act provides for such dispute being investigated and settled under the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. The definition of "appropriate Government" in s. 2 (5) of the Bonus Act. is substantially the same as that in S. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even if they are different, for the purpose of determining which is the "appropriate Government" for referring such dispute for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act what relevant is the definition of "appropriate Government" in s. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and not in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus act. Even if they are different, for the purpose of determining which is the "appropriate Government" for referring such dispute for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act what relevant is the definition of "appropriate Government" in s. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and not in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus act. The definition in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus Act is applicable for ascertaining the appropriate Government for the purposes of Explanation III to S. 16 (1), the proviso to S. 19. Ss. 21, 27, 30 and 33 of that Act. S 3 of the Bonus Act is applicable onlv for computation of bonus and not for determining whether or not a particular branch or a particular factory is an establishment. The Bangalore branch of Remington Company should be regarded as an establishment. As the dispute between the Management and the employees of Bangalore branch regarding bonus, arose substantially in Bangalore, the Government of Mysore was the appropriate government to refer such dispute for adjudication. ( 9 ) MR. K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the employees in WP. No. 54 of 1971, adopted the arguments of Mr. Narasimhan and submitted that the dispute between the Management of Gokak Mills Ltd. , and its employees in its textile mills at Gokak Falls, regarding bonus, substantially arose in Mysore State and that the Govermnent of Mysore was the appropriate government to refer such dispute for adjudication. Another contention advanced bv Mr. Subba Rao was that the object of industrial adjudication is to maintain industrial peace, that the Government of Maharashtra cannot be expected to have any interest in maintaining such industrial peace at Gokak Falls in Mysore State where the textile mills are situate, and that hence the Government of Mysore should be regarded as the appropriate Government to refer the dispute between the Management and the employees of the textile mills at Gokak Falls. On the other hand, Mr. V. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the employers in these petitions, supported the decision of the Tribunal. It was also contended by Mr. Narasimha Murthy that where a company has several branch offices, it is only the head office that should be regarded as having the ultimate control and management over the branches and that hence the head office alone should be regarded as an establishment and not any branch office. Mr. It was also contended by Mr. Narasimha Murthy that where a company has several branch offices, it is only the head office that should be regarded as having the ultimate control and management over the branches and that hence the head office alone should be regarded as an establishment and not any branch office. Mr. Narasimha Murthy added that likewise, the registered office of a company has ultimate control and management over all it's factories wherever they are situate and that hence only such registered office and not any such factory should be regarded as an establishment. Another argument advanced by Mr. Narasimha murthy was that if the Government of each State in which a branch office or a factory of a company is situate, should be regarded as having jurisdiction to refer for adjudication a dispute regarding bonus between the management and the employees in such branch or factory, there would be multiplicity of awards of Tribunals regarding bonus payable by the same employer to his employees, which may result in conflicting awards and confusion and that hence only the Government of the State within which the head office or the registered office of a company is situate, should be regarded as the appropriate Government to refer any dispute regarding bonus, between the company and its employees in any of its branches or factories wherever situate. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal was not wholly correct in saying that the Bonus Act is a self contained and exhaustive enactment relating to bonus. In Delhi cloth and General Milk Co. , Ltd. v. Workmen, (1971) 2 LLJ. 539 SC, the Supreme Court observed at page 546 that the Bonus Act is a self contained and self-sufficient act, except in so far as it refers to other enactments mentioned therein. The Industrial Disputes Act is one of the enactments mentioned in the Bonus Act. In Sanghvi Jivraj v. MCC. and KMW. Union, AIR 1969 SC 530 , 538 the Supreme court has pointed that S. 22 of the Bonus Act creates a statutory ction that a dispute between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under that Act, is an industrial dispute and applies the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or other corresponding law in force for investigation and settlement of such dispute. Thus, once a dispute between an employer and his employees relating to bonus, is, by the statutory fiction under S. 22 of the Bonus Act, deemed to be an industrial dispute, then, investigation and settlement of such dispute is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act including S. 2 (a) which defines "appropriate Government". There is no reason why the definition in S. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act should not be applied for determining the appropriate Government for referring such dispute for adjudication. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Narasimha Murthy contended that when the Bonus act itself contains a definition of "appropriate Government" in S. 2 (5), that definition should be regarded as expressly providing otherwise as contemplated in S. 22 of the Bonus Act, and that hence the application of s. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is excluded in regard to a dispute about bonus. ( 12 ) THERE is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Narasimhan that the definition of "appropriate Government" in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus act, is for the purposes of Explanation III to S. 16 (1), the proviso to S. 19 and Ss. 21, 27, 30 and 33 of the Bonus Act, where the expression "appropriate government" occurs, and net i'or purpose of determining which government has the jurisdiction to make a reference under S. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, it is not necessary to express a final opinion on the question whether the definition in S. 2 (5) of the Bonus act or that in Sec. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act should be applied for determining the appropriate Government to refer for adjudication a dispute regarding bonus, because in our opinion, these two definitions do not bring about different results as observed by the Supreme Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its workmen, (1962) 1 LLJ. 409, 416, the word "establishment" in the absence of a definition in the enactment in which it occurs, should be construed in its ordinary sense guided by such indication as the context may furnish. The Supreme court quoted with approval, the observations of Harris, C. J. , in Prayatkumar v. W. T. C. Parker, (1949) 1 FJR. 245, that the words "industrial establishment" mean the place at which the workmen are employed, and that accordingly sec. The Supreme court quoted with approval, the observations of Harris, C. J. , in Prayatkumar v. W. T. C. Parker, (1949) 1 FJR. 245, that the words "industrial establishment" mean the place at which the workmen are employed, and that accordingly sec. 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which imposes a prohibition against strikes by any "workman who is employed in any industrial establishment", cannot cover the case of a workman in Bombay striking against an employer with whom employees in Calcutta have a dispute. After referring to sub-sec. (1-A) of Sec. 10 of the Industial Disputes Act, the supreme Court observed that that provision was based on the notion that the industrial establishments of a concern situated in different States are distinct establishments. ( 13 ) THE word 'establishment' occurring in sub-sections (5), (15) and (16) of Ses. 2 of the Bonus Act, has not been defined in that Act. In construing that word, this is what the Supreme Court said in Alloy Steel Products v. The workmen, (1971) 1 LLJ. 217 , 220. "an establishment cannot be identified with a company. . . . . . . . . obviously, the word 'establishment' is intended to indicate something different from a company as defined by the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 which lays down the applicability of the Act. The Act has been made applicable to every factory and every other establishment in which twenty or more persons are employed on any day during an accounting year. Supposing a company has a factory "m one premises and has another workshop entirely distinct and separate from that factory, in which the number of persons employed is less than 20. The act itself will apply to the other establishment in which the number of employees is less than 20. The applicability of the Act will be independent of other provisions of the Act. "repelling the contention that Sec. 3 of the Bonus Act affords guidance lor ascertaining the meaning of the expression "establishment", this is what the Supreme Court said at page 220:"it has to be noted that the principal part of Sec. 3 lays down that different departments or undertakings or branches of an establishment are to be treated as part of the same establishment, only for the purpose of computation of the bonus under the Act. They cannot be treated as part of one establishment for the purpose of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 of the Act. " ( 14 ) IN the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that Sec. 3 of the Bonus Act is applicable only for computation of the bonus payable under that Act. The Tribunal was manifestly in error in applying that section and coming to the conclusion that the head office of a company and all its branches, wherever situate, constitute one establishment and that the registered office of a company and its factory or factories, wherever situate, constitute one establishment. ( 15 ) WHERE a company has its head office in one State and its branch office or factory is situate in a different State, the question as to which State government should be regarded as the appropriate Government to refer for adjudication the dispute between the management of the company and its workmen in such branch office or factory, was considered by the bombaby High Court in Lalbhai Mills Ltd. v. Dhanumbai, AIR 1955 Bom. 493. Chagla, CJ. , who spoke for the Bench, said that the Industrial Disputes Act does not deal with causes of action nor does it indicate what factors confer jurisdiction upon the Labour Court, that applying the wellknown tests of jurisdiction, a Court or a Tribunal has jurisdiction if the parties reside within its jurisdiction or if the subject matter of the dispute substantially arises within its jurisdiction. His Lordship added that the correct approach to such a question would be to ask where did a dispute substantially arise. The above statement of law was approved by the Supreme Court in India cable Company v. Its workmen (3 ). ( 16 ) THE dispute regarding bonus, between the employees of the Bangalore branch and the management of Remington Company arose, in our opinion, substantially at Bangalore. Hence it follows, the Government of mysore and not the Government of West Bengal, is the appropriate government to refer such dispute for adjudication. Likewise, the dispute regarding bonus, between the employees of the textile mills at Gokak Falls and the management of Gokak Falls Ltd. , arose, in our opinion, substantially at Gokak Falls. Hence it follows, the Government of mysore and not the Government of West Bengal, is the appropriate government to refer such dispute for adjudication. Likewise, the dispute regarding bonus, between the employees of the textile mills at Gokak Falls and the management of Gokak Falls Ltd. , arose, in our opinion, substantially at Gokak Falls. Hence it follows that it is the Government of Mysore and not the Government of Maharashtra, which is the appropriate Government to refer such dispute for adjudication. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Narasimha Murthy contended that the ultimate control and management of the Bangalore branch office of Remington Company is from its head office at Calcutta and that hence the dispute between the employees of the Bangalore branch office and the management of that company, should be regarded as having arisen substantially at Calcutta. Likewise, Mr. Narasimha Murthy contended that the ultimate control and management of the textile mills at Gokak Falls, is from the registered office of Gokak Mills Ltd. . at Bombay and that hence, the dispute between the employees of the textile mills and the management of that company should be regarded as having arisen substantially at Bombay. Mr. Narasimha Murthy sought support for his contention from the following observations of the Supreme Court in Lipton Ltd v Their employees, AIR 1959 SC 676 , 681. "it may be made clear, however, at this stage, that one of the points taken before the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of. the Lipton ltd. , was that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of employees of the Delhi Office who were employed outside the State of Delhi. This point of jurisdiction was decided against the appellant and the Industrial Tribunal pointed out that all the workmen of the Delhi office, whether they worked in Delhi or not, received their salaries from the Delhi Office; they were controlled from Delhi office in the matter of leave, transfer, supervision, etc. , and therefore, the Delhi State Government was the appropriate Government within the meaning of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, relating to the dispute which arose between Lipton Ltd. , and the union and under Sec. 18 of the said Act, the award made by the Tribunal was binding on all the persons employed in the Delhi Office. " ( 18 ) SUPPORT was also sought to be drawn from, the decision in National tobacco Company Employees Union v. Manohar Singh (8 ). There, the company had its head office at Calcutta and maintained depots in different parts of the country. One of such depots was maintained at Jullundar for distribution of the products of the company. Its Circle Manager at Jullundar merely supervised the sales at the market but had no control over the employees working in the Jullundar depot, who did not draw their salaries, travelling allowance or any other payment from the Jullundar depot. The orders of their appointments, transfers and dismissal etc. , were not made or regulated by any officer at Jullundar. ( 19 ) THE Punjab and Haryana High Court took the view that that company had only a depot and not a branch office at Jullundar and that the Punjab government had no jurisdiction to refer for adjudication under Sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute between the management of that company and the Union of its employees at Jullundar. According to the facts set out by the Supreme Court in Lipton Company's case (7), the concerned workmen were of the Delhi Office though they worked outside Delhi and they received their salaries from the Delhi office and were controlled from that office in matters of leave, transfer, supervision, etc. But it is not the case of Mr. Narasimha Murthy that the petitioners in WP. 572 of 1969 were not employees of the Bangalore branch office of Remington Company. It was not pleaded and much less was any evidence placed before the Tribnual that these employees did not receive their salaries and allowances from the Bangalore branch office or that that office did not exercise any control over them in matters of leave, transfer, supervision, etc. Likewise, it is not the case of Mr. Narasimha murthy that the petitioners in WP. No. 54 of 1971 were not employees of the textile mills at Gokak Falls. It was not pleaded and much less any evidence placed before the Tribunal that they did not receive their salaries or wages and allowances from the mills at Gokak Falls or that the mills did not exercise any control over them in matters of appointment, leave supervision, discipline, dismissal, etc. It was not pleaded and much less any evidence placed before the Tribunal that they did not receive their salaries or wages and allowances from the mills at Gokak Falls or that the mills did not exercise any control over them in matters of appointment, leave supervision, discipline, dismissal, etc. ( 20 ) HENCE, the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in Lipton co. 's case (7) cannot have application to the present petitions. In National Tobacco Company Employees Union's case, AIR 1968 Pun. and H. 514, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not noticed the decision of the Supreme court in The Workmen of Sri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Sri Ranga vilas Motors (P) Ltd. , AIR 1967 SC 1040 . Sri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd. had its registered office at Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu and its workshop at Bangalore. One Mahalingam working in such workshop at Bangalore was transferred to Krishnagiri. As he did not join duty at Krishnagiri, he was removed from service. An industrial dspute was raised regarding his removal. It was contended for the management of that company that the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction to refer that dispute for adjudication. Repelling that contention, this is what the Supreme Court said at page 1043:"it seems to us that on the facts of this case it is clear that there was a separate establishment at Bangalore and Mahalingam was working there. There were a number of other workmen working in this place. The order of transfer, it is true, was made in Krishnagiri at the Head Office, but the order was to operate on a workman workinh in Banhalore. . . . . . . . Ordinarily, if there is a separate establishment the dispute would arise at that place. . . . . . . . It is quite clear that the subject-matter of this dispute in this case substantially arose within the jurisdiction of the Mysore Government. " ( 21 ) FOR the purpose of those petitions, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the aforesaid decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court, is correct in view of what the Supreme Court has said in Sri Ranga vilas Motor's case (9 ). " ( 21 ) FOR the purpose of those petitions, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the aforesaid decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court, is correct in view of what the Supreme Court has said in Sri Ranga vilas Motor's case (9 ). As stated earlier, the two employers in the present petition neither pleaded nor placed any evidence before the tribunal that the employees of the Bangalore branch office of Remington company or the employees of the textile mills at Gokak Falls, did not draw their salaries or wages and allowances from the Bangalore office or the mills at Gokak Falls respectively and that orders of their appointments, dismissal, etc. , were not made or regulated by any office at Bangalore or Gokak Falls respectively. Hence the decision in National Tobacco employees' Union's case (8) has no application to the present petitions. However, Mr. Narnsimha Murthy reouested that these two employers should row be given an opportunity to adduce evidence before the tribunal on the questions as to where the respective employees were paid their salaries or wages and allowances and whether the Bangalore branch office of Remington Company and the textile mills, at Gokak Falls exercised control over their respective employees in matters relating to appointment, leave, supervision, discipline, dismissal, etc. ( 22 ) WE do not see any pood grounds to accede to this request of Mr. Narasimha Murthv. Having raised the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Government of Mysore to refer these disputes for adjudication, it was up to these two employers to plead relevant facts and to adduce necessary evidence on his point. If they omitted or failed to do so, without anv good reason, they cannot now ask for a second opportunity to adduce such evidence. Moreover in the absence of necessary pleadings they cannot adduce evidence on such matters. ( 23 ) THERE is one more reason for holding that the Government of Mysore is the appropriate Government to refer these two disputes for adjudication. As rightly argued by Mr. Moreover in the absence of necessary pleadings they cannot adduce evidence on such matters. ( 23 ) THERE is one more reason for holding that the Government of Mysore is the appropriate Government to refer these two disputes for adjudication. As rightly argued by Mr. Subba Rao, if a dispute arises between the management of a company having its head office or registered office outside Mysore State and its (the company's) employees in its branch office or factory in Mysore State, such dispute is likely to disturb the industrial peace not so much in the State in which its head office or registered office is situate as in Mysore State where such branch or factory is situate. Hence, it is the Government of Mysore and not the Government of the state in which such head office or registered office is situate, that can be expected to be interested in taking appropriate action under the Industrial disputes Act for maintaining industrial peace, unless, the Central government is the "appropriate Government" in respect of such industrial dispute. ( 24 ) AS stated earlier, Mr. Narasimha Murthy contended that if the governments of the States in which branch offices or factories of a company are situate, should be regarded as the appropriate Governments to refer the disputes between the management of that company and its employees in such branches or factories, different Tribunals in different states may give different decisions, that such decisions may often be conflicting, and that such varying or conflicting decisions in respect of the same company, may lead to chaos and confusion, far from promoting industrial peace and harmony. Mr. Narasimha Murthy added that in particular, different Tribunals may award different rates of bonus under the Bonus Act to employees in different branch offices or factories of the same company in different States though such computation of bonus is based on the overall accounts of the same company and that such variation in the rates of bonus between employees of different branches or factories of the same company, may. far from promoting industrial peace and harmony, create discontent and unrest among employees. ( 25 ) AS pointed out by the Supreme Court in Lipton Co. far from promoting industrial peace and harmony, create discontent and unrest among employees. ( 25 ) AS pointed out by the Supreme Court in Lipton Co. 's case (1), the tribunal of each State has jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the employees of establishments in that State and it (the Tribunal) has no jurisdiction to make an all India award. If the Management of a company apprehends that the decisions of Tribunals of different States in regard to bonus payable to its employees in different branches or factories situate in different States, mav not be uniform, it is open to the Management to approach the Central Government and to persuade it to refer such dispute relating to bonus to a National Tribunal under sub-sec. (1a) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act But the mere possibility or even probability of the decisions of Tribunals in different States not being uniform would not be sufficient to hold that the Government of the respective state in which a branch office or a factory of a company is situate, is not the appropriate Government to refer for adjudication the dispute between the Management of that company and its employees in such branch office or factory. ( 26 ) THE findings of the Tribunal in these two disputes that the Government of Mysore had no jurisdiction to refer these disputes to it (the Tribunal), are clearly unsustainable. The Tribunal has disposed of these disputes on the preliminarv questions of jurisdiction and has not gone into the merits of these disputes. ( 27 ) IN the result, we quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 13-8-1968 in I. D. No. 57 of 1967 and direct the Tribunal to take back that dispute on its file and to decide it according to law. We also quash the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1970 in I. D. No. 23 of 1967 and direct the Tribunal to take back that dispute on its file and to decide it according to law. ( 28 ) IN the circumstances of these petitions, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .