J. N, BHATT. J. ( 1 ) RULE. Service of rule is waived by Mr Mukul Sinha for the respondent. ( 2 ) QUESTIONS with regard to interpretation of Sec. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and the proper test to determine the appropriate Government in relation to industrial dispute have come up for consideration and adjudication in this petition under art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is situated at Ludhiana in Punjab and its administrative office is situated at Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order, dated 5. 8. 1996, passed by the Presiding Officer of labour Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, below Ex. 10, which is an application jointly submitted by the parties in Reference No. 54/93, whereby, the preliminary objection about the jurisdiction and the appropriate Government came to be decided against the petitioner. During the course of the proceedings of reference before the Labour Court, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner company. It was contended by the petitioner company that the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, referring the dispute to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, for its adjudication is legally not maintainable as the State of Gujarat is not the appropriate Government in terms of Sec. 2 (a) of the ID Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioner had raised the preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction on following grounds: (1) The registered office and the administrative office of the petitioner company is situated in the State of Punjab. (2) The workmen covered under the reference were all employed by the Head office situated at Hoshiarpur and the workmen are only working in the Sales office, at Ahmedabad. (3) The Company has various branches all throughout India and the final administrative control on them are being exercised from Hoshiarpur in the state of Punjab. (4) The appointments and dismissals are being made by the Head Office of the company at Hoshiarpur. (5) Transfer orders, and other administrative decisions are also being taken and issued from Hoshiarpur. (3) The Company has various branches all throughout India and the final administrative control on them are being exercised from Hoshiarpur in the state of Punjab. (4) The appointments and dismissals are being made by the Head Office of the company at Hoshiarpur. (5) Transfer orders, and other administrative decisions are also being taken and issued from Hoshiarpur. (6) Pay scales and other service canditions of the employees employed at the regional office at Ahmedabad and other various centres are determined by the administrative office in the State of Punjab. (7) The effective control over the employees in the regional office at Ahmedabad as well as other offices are with the office at Hoshiarpur in the State of punjab. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the appropriate government for referring the demands submitted by the union of the workmen employed at the regional office at Ahmedabad is the State of Punjab and not the State of Gujarat. ( 6 ) THE respondent Union contended that the appropriate Government for making reference of the Industrial dispute is State of Gujarat on the following grounds : (1) That there is a regional office, at Ahmedabad, where the employees in respect of whom reference is made are working. (2) That the petitioner company is registered under Shops and Establishments act in Ahmedabad. (3) That 40 employees are working in the branch office of the petitioner company at Ahmedabad out of which 20 employees are in the cadre of workmen. (4) That the charter of demands submitted by the respondent Union is in respect of the service conditions of the workmen working in the office at Ahmedabad as their wages and scale of pay are far below reasonable. (5) That the petitioner Company had not raised objection about the jurisdiction during the course of conciliation proceedings. (6) That the charter of demands submitted is in respect of the service conditions of the employees working in Ahmedabad office and staying in Ahmedabad. (7) That the said employees are also getting their salaries from the office, at ahmedabad, and therefore the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad and therefore, the appropriate Government is state of Gujarat. (7) That the said employees are also getting their salaries from the office, at ahmedabad, and therefore the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad and therefore, the appropriate Government is state of Gujarat. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad, after considering the facts and circumstances and the relevant proposition of law rejected the preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction raised by the petitioner Company holding that the State of Gujarat is the appropriate government for making reference of an industrial dispute under Sec. 2 (a) of (the ID Act. ( 7 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the ID Act defines the appropriate Government. Sec. 2 (a) (i) defines the industries and undertakings where the Central Government is the appropriate government. Sec. 2 (a) (ii) states that in relation to any other industrial dispute, the Stale government is the appropriate Government. ( 8 ) CONTROVERSY may arise with regard to appropriate Government under three different following circumstances : (i) As to whether the industrial activity comes within the jurisdiction of the central Government or a State Government; (ii) Where such activity comes within the jurisdiction of two different State governments (iii) When such activity comes partly within the jurisdiction of the Central government and partly within the jurisdiction of a State Government. Section 2 (a) (ii) of the ID Act merely states that "in relation to any other Industrial dispute, the State Government" This provision becomes irrelevant in the case of industrial dispute that involve multi-State Corporations, Corporations with Head Office in one State and Branches in several other States Such multi-State Corporations do not all operate on uniform lines. Some of the Corporations concentrate all powers including payment of salries in their Head Offices or Branch office and some of the Corporations have combination of such powers and functions. The question, therefore, would he which state Government would become appopriate Government in terms of Sec. 2 (a) if an industrial dispute between workmen located in one State while the employer or Head office is located in another State. ( 9 ) OBVIOUSLY, the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide simple and easy answer to the question posed again in this petition. Originally, the test applied was based on the analogy of the Civil Procedure Code, the place where the cause of action arises and the place where the parties concerned in the dispute reside. ( 9 ) OBVIOUSLY, the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide simple and easy answer to the question posed again in this petition. Originally, the test applied was based on the analogy of the Civil Procedure Code, the place where the cause of action arises and the place where the parties concerned in the dispute reside. By case law, two-fold test is grafted on the provisions of Sec. 10 of the ID Act and also on the logic implicit in these provisions, that is the place where a dispute exits or is apprehended. However, recently the Apex Court has highlighted another aspect very relevant for determination of the question of an appropriate Government. The nexus between a dispute and the State has to be established on the basis of facts. At times, facts of a case may necessitate fixing a nexus between an industry and the State instead of between a dispute and the State. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel Mr Bhatt for the petitioner Company that the courts have departed from the nexus between a dispute and the territory of a State in favour of a nexus between an industry and territory of the State on finding of facts which disclosed either that the Head Office concentrated all powers and financial control in itself or where the employer had no office or carried on no business where a dispute may be siad to have occurred. It is in this context, learned counsel Mr Bhatt has, forcefully, contended that the impugned order of the Labour Court is unjust, perverse and illegal requiring interference of this Court, which is, seriously, countenanced by learned counsel mr Sinha while appearing for the respondent Union and while supporting the order under challenge. ( 10 ) FOLLOWING facts are not in dispute. (1) That the petitioner has its regional office at Ahmedabad. (2) That the charter of demands forming part of industrial dispute under reference made by the State Government is pertaining to the service conditions of the workmen employed by the petitioner company who arc residing in Ahmedabad and who are working the Ahmedabad Office. (3) The said employees are getting their salaries and wages from the Ahmedabad office. (2) That the charter of demands forming part of industrial dispute under reference made by the State Government is pertaining to the service conditions of the workmen employed by the petitioner company who arc residing in Ahmedabad and who are working the Ahmedabad Office. (3) The said employees are getting their salaries and wages from the Ahmedabad office. (4) That the regional office, at Ahmedabad, of the petitioner Company has been registered under the Shops and Establishments Act and the the Branch office at Ahmedabad has 40 employees out of which 20 persons are in the cadre of workmen in the office and the godown. It is not contended by the petitioner company that the workmen working in other branches and the Head Office of the Company have uniform terms and conditions of employment. There is also no dispute about the fact that there is no any settlement or contract in respect of the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the petitioner Company. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid aspects emerging from the record of the present case would, undoubtedly, go to show that the cause of action, if not wholly, but in part has arisen in the city of Ahmedabad within the State of Gujarat and therefore, the State of Gujarat is the appropriate Government in terms of Sec. 2 (a) of the ID Act for making reference of an industrial dispute. The impugned order rejecting the application on the point of preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction is justified. Apart from the fact that the petitioner Company did not raise objection at the relevant time in the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the aforesaid aspects which are not in controversy clearly go to show that the State of Gujarat is the appropriate Government. ( 12 ) THE underlying purport and design of the Industrial Disputes Act is also to ensure industrial peace. ( 13 ) IN case of Corporations with multi-State business, the appropriate government must be the Government of the place where the dispute exists or is apprehended and which may lead to breach of industrial peace and reasonability to prevent which lies with the government having jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula or any fixed test or yard-stick as the ultimate decision would depend on the facts in each case. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula or any fixed test or yard-stick as the ultimate decision would depend on the facts in each case. However, it can, safely, be concluded that the rule of nexus between a dispute and territory of a State and not nexus between industry and territory of a State must be clearly borne in mind. Applying this yardstick and test in the set of facts of the case on hand, the contentions that the Government of gujarat is not the appropriate Government is wholly unsustainable. ( 14 ) THE terms appropriate Government though is defined in Sec. 2 (a) of the ID Act, it has to be read along with the provisions of Sec. 10 (1) of the ID Act. Definition of Sec. 2 (a) is not very helpful for determining the appropriate State Government. However, Sec. 10 (1) of the ID Act does contemplate that the appropriate Government would be that government in whose jurisdiction an industrial dispute arises or is apprehended when it says 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" make a reference. It is in this context it will be necessary to bear in mind that the proper test to determine the appropriate Government in relation to industrial dispute would he to see where the dispute substantially arose. If a workman is working in an independent or a separate establishment, the dispute can be taken to arise only at a place where the establishment exits. Simply because the head office exercises administrative control over the workmen would riot ipso facto confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office or administrative office is located for making a reference under Sec. 10 of the ID Act. In Workmen of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd vs. Sri Ranguvilas Motors (P) Ltd. , air 1967 SC 1040 , the Supreme Court has laid down the tests for determination of the appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute. It is held that there should be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning where the dispute arises. It is held that there should be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning where the dispute arises. It is further held that ordinarily if there is separate establishment of the industry and the workmen is working in the establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. The Supreme Court has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1955 Bom. 468. ( 15 ) THE facts of the aforesaid case of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd. (Supra) are on all force similar with the facts of the present case. In that case, the workmen working at Bangalore branch of a company having its head office at Krishnagiri, Madras Stale, was transferred by the orders of the head office. The workman did not obey the said orders of transier. Subsequently, the workmen was removed from service for disobeying the order of transfer. In relation to the order removing him from service, a reference under sec. 10 (1) (c) of the ID Act was made by the State of Mysore. The question arose whether the State of Mysore had jurisdiction to refer the dispute. The Supreme Court considering the facts and circumstances held that the dispute in that case arose at Bangalore where the concerned workman was working at the time of transfer and as such the Mysore State within whose jurisdiction the dispute arose is the appropriate State to refer the dispute. Thus the test which is required to be considered is : where did the dispute arise ? If there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. In the present case, the employees are working in the regional office at Ahmedabad and the charter of demand was submitted and industrial dispute was raised in connection with the terms and conditions of service of the employees working in ahmedabad office. It is, therefore, very clear that the dispute arose at Ahmedabad and therefore the State of Gujarat is the appropriate Government. There should, clearly, be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning which the dispute arose. It is, therefore, very clear that the dispute arose at Ahmedabad and therefore the State of Gujarat is the appropriate Government. There should, clearly, be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning which the dispute arose. ( 16 ) THE Apex Court in Indian Cable Company Ltd. vs. Its Workmen, 1962 (1) LLJ 409 (SC), also lucidly expounded the principle and the test to determine the jurisdiction and the question of appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute. In that case, the provisions of Secs. 2 (k), 2 (s), 10 and 25-G of the ID Act were considered. Therein the Company carrying on business at various places in India closed one of its branches and retrenched the workmen employed and working at such branch. Some of the retrenched workmen raised dispute that their retrenchment was not valid and the provisions of Sec. 25-G of the ID Act ought to have been applied by treating all the branches of the Company as one unit, and the dispute came to be referred for adjudication. It was the contention of the Company that after the closure of the branch office at Ambala, it had no place of business in the State of Punjab and in consequence thereof, the Government of Punjab had no jurisdiction to take a reference. It was held that the Punjab Government would be competent to make the reference if the cause of action had arisen wholly or in part within the State. As the validity of the closure of the branch had itself been in dispute, the cause of action must undoubtedly be held to have arisen within the State and it was held that the reference was competent by the State of Punjab. ( 17 ) IT would be also interesting to refer to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1975 SC 1737 . In that case, the dispute arose between the Barrackpore branch of the company and its workmen. A contention was raised that the Barrackpore branch being under the control of Bangalore division office of the company, the West Bengal,government was not competent to make a reference. In that case, the dispute arose between the Barrackpore branch of the company and its workmen. A contention was raised that the Barrackpore branch being under the control of Bangalore division office of the company, the West Bengal,government was not competent to make a reference. This contention was not accepted by the Supreme Court with following relevant observations: "it may be assumed that the Barrackpore branch was under the control of the bangalore division of the company. Yet it was a separate branch engaged in an industry of repairs of aircrafts or the like at Barrackpore. For the purposes of the Act and on the facts of this case the Barrackpore branch was an industry carried on by the company as a separate unit. The workers were receiving their pay packages at Barrackpore and were under the control of the officers of the company stationed there. If there was any disturbance of industrial peace at Barrackpore where considerable number of workmen were working the appropriate Government concerned in the maintenance of the industrial peace was the West Bengal Government. The grievance of the workmen of barrackpore were their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute in question arose there. The reference, therefore, for adjudication of such a dispute by the Governor of West Bengal was good and valid. " ( 18 ) THE nexus should be the dispute and the territory of the State and in the present case, the dispute arose within the territory of the State of Gujarat consequent upon the failure of conciliation in respect of the service conditions of the workmen. The State of gujarat is, therefore, the appropriate Government to make a reference of an industrial dispute under Sec. 10 of the Act for adjudication by the Labour Court. ( 19 ) IT would be pertinent to make reference of the ratio of a decision rendered by this court in Vinod Rao vs. 1st Labour Court, Ahmedabad, 1980 0 Labic 1191. In the said division Bench decision, a question arose whether the Gujarat Labour Court or the maharashtra Labour Court had jurisdiction. The test which was applied was where the dispute had substantially arisen. The employer, Blitz Publications Private Limited, was located in the city of Bombay in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was employed at bombay and his activities were controlled and supervised by his employer from Bombay. The test which was applied was where the dispute had substantially arisen. The employer, Blitz Publications Private Limited, was located in the city of Bombay in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was employed at bombay and his activities were controlled and supervised by his employer from Bombay. The petitioner had been operating in the State of Gujarat on behalf of his employer. His salary was paid to him by his employer at Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat. The order terminating his services, though made at Bombay, was served upon him at Ahmedabad and was implemented there. The impugned order of termination of services became fully operative when the petitioners services came to an end in the State of Gujarat. Upon these facts the question for determination was which court has jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner whether Gujarat Labour Court or Maharashtra labour Court. This Court, after applying the aforesaid test held that the Labour Court at ahmedabad had jurisdiction and the State of Gujarat was the appropriate Government. Thus the test laid down and applied was "where has the dispute substantially arisen?". It was clearly found and held that there must be nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State. The dispute can be said to have substantially arisen, at Bombay, where the order terminating the petitioners services was made and from where his activities were controlled and supervised by his employer. It can also be said that the dispute had substantially arisen at Ahmedabad because the order terminating his services was implemented and enforced there and the petiioner was stopped from working at ahmedabad^and in the State of Gujarat. It was, therefore, found that the dispute in question could be said to have substantially arisen both at Bombay as well as Ahmedabad. It is in this context, it was found that the Labour Court at Bombay as well as Labour Court at Ahmedabad have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. It could be very well seen from the aforesaid decision that the test laid down by the Apex Court was followed by this court in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. It is in this context, it was found that the Labour Court at Bombay as well as Labour Court at Ahmedabad have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. It could be very well seen from the aforesaid decision that the test laid down by the Apex Court was followed by this court in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. ( 20 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and considering the provisions of Sec. 2 (a) and Sec. 10 of the ID Act and the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the appropriate Government in relation to industrial dispute raised by the respondent would be the State of Gujarat and therefore the impugned order is required to be confirmed while rejecting this petition being meritless. Accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. .