ORDER 1. In this bunch of petitions one of the questions argued before us by the learned counsel for the parties relates to the definition of "appropriate Government" set out in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. While it is maintained by the petitioners that the appropriate Government would be the Central Government, the respondents contend that the State Government and not the Central Government would be the appropriate Government. Reference is also made to the definition of 64 appropriate Government" set out in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. This question has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions. While considering the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a three-Judge Bench in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Workmen ( (1975) 4 SCC 679 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 377) held that the appropriate Government would be the State Government even though the Company was wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government. A two-Judge Bench in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar ( (1969) 1 SCC 765 ) also took the same view which was followed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.( (1975) 4 SCC 679 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 377) and Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Model Mills (1984 Supp SCC 443 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 456) as also in Workers Union v. Food Corpn. of India ( (1985) 2 SCC 294 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 456). 3. The question was again considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Air India Statutory Corpn. v. United Labour Union ( (1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344). In para 28 of the decision it is stated as under : (SCC p. 410) "28. From this perspective and on deeper consideration, we are of the considered view that the two-Judge Bench in Heavy Engg. case ( (1969) 1 SCC 765 ) narrowly interpreted the words appropriate Government on the common law principles which no longer bear any relevance when it is tested on the anvil of Article 14. It is true that in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. ( (1975) 4 SCC 679 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 377), R. D. Shetty (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ) and Food Corpn. of India ( (1985) 2 SCC 294 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 456) cases the ratio of Heavy Engg. It is true that in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. ( (1975) 4 SCC 679 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 377), R. D. Shetty (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ) and Food Corpn. of India ( (1985) 2 SCC 294 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 456) cases the ratio of Heavy Engg. case ( (1969) 1 SCC 765 ) formed the foundation. In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. case ( (1987) 1 SCC 615 : AIR 1987 SC 643 )) there was no independent consideration except repetition and approval of the ratio in Heavy Engg. case ( (1969) 1 SCC 765 ). It is to reiterate that Heavy Engg. case ( (1969) 1 SCC 765 ) is based on concession. In R. D. Shetty case (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ) the need to dwell in depth into this aspect did not arise but reference was made to the premise of private law interpretation which was relegated to and had given place to constitutional perspectives of Article 14 which is consistent with the view we have stated above. In Food Corpn. of India case ( (1985) 2 SCC 294 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 1344) the Bench proceeded primarily on the premise that warehouses of the Corporation are situated within the jurisdiction of different State Governments which led it to conclude that the appropriate Government would be the State Government." 4. On a perusal of the above para it would be clear that although the cases, namely, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. ( (1975) 4 SCC 679 : 1975 SCC (L&S 377), R. D. Shetty (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ) and Food Corpn. of India ( (1985) 2 SCC 294 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 456) mentioned above were decided by a three-Judge Bench, the Honble Judges who constituted the three-Judge Bench in Air India Statutory Corpn. case ( (1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344) did not agree with the view already expressed earlier that the appropriate Government would be the State Government and thus there is an obvious conflict of opinion on this question which needs to be resolved. 5. case ( (1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344) did not agree with the view already expressed earlier that the appropriate Government would be the State Government and thus there is an obvious conflict of opinion on this question which needs to be resolved. 5. The other question canvassed before us, namely, the question of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of a notification issued under Section 10 of the Act is also an important question. 6. Having regard to the conflict of opinion as also the importance of the question raised before us, we direct that this case shall be laid before a larger Bench for hearing. Let the papers be laid before Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Court Masters