Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23-9-1972 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, Respondent No. 1, by which it was held that B. S. Cases Nos. 25, 26, 27,28,29 and 30 of 1971 under S. 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter called the Act) Court, Chhotanagpur (Roy J.) 1791 were not maintainable. This order is annexure 2 to this writ application. 2. All the complainants were the employees of the National Coal Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") which has its head office at Ranchi. All the petitioners were technicians, and, at the relevant time, were posted at the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop of the Corporation at Korba in Madhya Pradpesh. In Korba, there were Coal Mines belonging to the Corporation, Respondent No. 2. While the petitioners were so posted at the said Central Workshop at Korba, they were charge-sheeted and ultimately after domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from service by order dated 14-1-1971 with effect from 15-1- 1971, which is annexure 1 to this writ application. The petitioners, thereafter, separately filed complaints against the Corporation, respondent No. 2 under S. 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act to the Labour Court at Ranchi, challenging the order of dismissal. The Corporation filed -their show cause in the Labour Court and raised two preliminary issues, viz., (i) the Labour Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints because the complainants-petitioners were in employment at Madhya Pradesh; (ii) The workshop of the Corporation at Korba being a mine within the definition of S. 2 (1) (j) of the Mines Act and having been declared as such by the Central Government under S. 82 of the said Act, it ought to be held that in view of S. 4 of the Act, the cases of the petitioners were outside the purview of the Act. 3. By the impugned order, the Labour Court, respondent No. 1, held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints but dismissed the complaints on the ground that the said workshop was a mine and, therefore, the complaint petitions were not maintainable under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. 3. By the impugned order, the Labour Court, respondent No. 1, held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints but dismissed the complaints on the ground that the said workshop was a mine and, therefore, the complaint petitions were not maintainable under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. Shri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners contended that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop of the Corporation at Korba was not a mine as defined in S. 2 (1) (j) (vii) of the Mines Act. Shri Sinha further contended that the certificate issued by the Central Government under S. 82 of the Mines Act was bad in law and, therefore, the finding of the Labour Court on the basis of the said certificate is liable to be set aside. 4. The contention of Sri Sinha has no merit. The subject matter of the writ application is the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, as contained in Annexure 2 to this writ application and not the Certificate issued by the Central Government under S. 82 of the Mines Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate in this writ application. 5. S. 82 of the Mines Act reads as follows: "82. If any question arises as to whether any excavation of working (or premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on) is a mine within the meaning of this Act, the Central Government may decide the question, and a certificate signed by a Secretary to the Central Government shall be conclusive on the point." The certificate issued under the said section has been quoted in the impugned order which runs as follows: "(Department of Labour and Employment) CERTIFICATE New Delhi, the 1st May, 1969. S.O. 1901This is to certify that, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), the Central Government has decided that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop, Korba, belonging to the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi, is a mine within the meaning of the said Act. S.O. 1901This is to certify that, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), the Central Government has decided that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop, Korba, belonging to the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi, is a mine within the meaning of the said Act. (No 6/5/68-MI) P. M. Nayak, Secy." It will appear from the certificate that it was signed by the Secretary to the Central Government and the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop, Korba belonging to the Corporation was declared as a Mine within the meaning of the Mines Act. Under Section 82 of the Mines Act such a certificate shall be conclusive on the question as to whether the said workshop was a mine or not and in view of the said certificate the finding of the Labour Court must be sustained. 6. Shri Sinha further contended that the petitioners were in the employment of the Corporation and not in the Mines at Korba and, therefore, there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the Mines at Korba. The contention of Shri Sinha is devoid of merit. It is admitted case of the petitioners that they were appointed by the Corporation, respondent No. 2 and at the relevant time they were posted in the said workshop. The Corporation owned several mines at different places in the Country and one such place was Korba. Korba Workshop was owned by the Corporation and the Corporation was the employer of the petitioners. The petitioners, do not contend that the workshop was owned by a person other than the Corporation and, therefore the Corporation as the employer has right to dismiss the petitioners. 7. In the circumstances, the writ application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circum stances, there will be no order as to cost. HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J. 8 I agree.