JUDGMENT : S. ROY, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the ORDER :dated 24.7.1980 as contained in Annexure 4 passed by respondent no. 1 by which it held that the application filed by the petitioner under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act) was not maintainable before it as it had no jurisdiction. 2. Respondent no. 2 entrusted respondent no. 3 with the work of construction of Coal Washery at Sudamdih. The petitioner was employed by respondent no. 3 in the construction of the Coal Washery. When the Coal Washery was under construction, the petitioner and others filed a joint application under section 33C (2) of the Act for computation of benefit. This was filed before respondent no. 1, the Labour Court constituted by the Central Government. Respondent no. 2 and 3 appeared and filed separate written statements. In both the written statements, inter-alia, they contended that the Labour Court constituted by the Central Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. That contention was accepted by respondent no. 2 (sic). 3. Mr. Baban Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that coal industry is a controlled industry and also an industry declared under the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and, therefore, the Central Government is the appropriate Government with regard to coal washery; therefore, the Labour Court constituted by it had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioner and others. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 submitted that in view of the definition of the Mine in the Mines Act, 1952, coal washery under construction cannot be said to be a mine, therefore, the finding recorded by respondent no. 1 that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application should not be interfered with. The submission of Mr. Roy was also adopted by Mr. Chaterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 4. Under the definition of 'appropriate Government' in section 2 (a) of the Act, Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to a mine. Under the Mines Act, 'mine' means a mine as defined in clause (j) of sub-clause (i) of section 2 of the Mines Act. Chaterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 4. Under the definition of 'appropriate Government' in section 2 (a) of the Act, Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to a mine. Under the Mines Act, 'mine' means a mine as defined in clause (j) of sub-clause (i) of section 2 of the Mines Act. In clause (j) there are eleven sub-clauses and we are concerned with sub-cause (xi) which reads as follows:– "(xi) Any 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." With reference to this, Mr. Baban Lal submitted that since coal washery is for dressing coal, the washery must be held to be mine with in the meaning of the Mines Act. In this case, we are concerned whether a washery under construction can be held to be a mine. If the coal is being dressed in a washery, it may be held to be a mine within the definition of the Mines Act. Admittedly no dressing of coal was being carried on in the premises in question, sub-clause (xi), therefore, is also not attracted to the facts of this case. If the premises was not a mine, the Central Government cannot be said to be an appropriate Government within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, the application under section 33C (2) of the Act was not maintainable before the Labour Court constituted by the Central Government. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the ORDER :passed by respondent no. 1 as contained in Annexure 4. 5. In the result, there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 6. After I dictated the JUDGMENT : Mr. Baban Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 1 also held that respondent no. 2 was not a necessary party and it should not have been added in the application filed by the petitioner and others. Since respondent no. 1 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioner and others, any finding recorded by it on the application filed by the petitioner under section 33C (2) of the Act shall be of no effect in any future proceeding.