B. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur ("institute") an authority incorporated under the Indian Institute of Technology (Kharagpur) Act, 1956 and at present governed by the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 has challenged a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE following disputes have been referred to the Tribunal "i) Whether the dismissal from service of one Nirmal Kumar Chanda by the Management of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur is justified? ii) What relief, if any, is he entitled to?" ( 3 ) WITHOUT filing any written statement before the Tribunal, the petitioner has straightaway come up with the instant writ application thereby disputing the validity of the reference itself on the grounds that the Institute is not an industrial establishment, nor is the concerned employee a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has further submitted that appropriate Government within the meaning of the aforesaid Act is not the State Government but the Central Government and as such the reference was incompetent. ( 4 ) MR. Dutt, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ application. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Dutt, the question whether the employee is a workman or whether the Institute is an industrial establishment depends on investigation of facts which should be adjudicated before the Tribunal itself and as such before raising those questions before the Tribunal, the petitioner is not entitled to agitate all these questions in this writ application. As regards the authority of the State Government to refer the dispute, Mr. Dutt submits that even for the purpose of deciding that question, some evidence is necessary and as such this writ application should not be entertained. Mr. Dutt further contends that even the provisions contained in the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 will show that the petitioner is not run by or under the authority of the Central Government. In support of such contention Mr. Dutt relies upon the following decisions: 1) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Their Workmen and Ors. , ; 2) Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors. , ; 3) Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. Odusmath G. C. and Ors. In support of such contention Mr. Dutt relies upon the following decisions: 1) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Their Workmen and Ors. , ; 2) Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors. , ; 3) Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. Odusmath G. C. and Ors. , 1999-I-LLJ-19 (Kant-DB); 4) Andrew Yule and Company Limited and Its Group (Calcutta Region) Clerical Staff Union v. Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. and Ors. , 1996-I-LLJ-524 (Cal-DB); 5) D. P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. , ; 6) Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur v. Arid Zone Employees Union and Anr. , 1998-I-LLJ-723 (Raj); 7) Utkal Galvanizers (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. , 1996-I-LLJ-369 (Ori-DB ). ( 6 ) MR. Basu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Dutt and has contended that if the reference by State Government is invalid, the other questions whether the employee is a workman or whether the Institute is an industry are not required to be adjudicated. Mr. Basu submits that the Institute has been created by a statute and the said statute itself will show that the Institute is run by/or under the authority of Central Government and as such even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner is an industry, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. According to Mr. Basu for adjudication of such question, no disputed question of fact need be investigated and simply the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 will show that in the instant case the appropriate Government is the Central Government. ( 7 ) AS regards the authority of this Court to entertain these questions in a writ application, Mr. Basu has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , and the other in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, in my view, Mr. Dutt is right in his contention that for the purpose of adjudication of the questions whether the employee is a workman or whether the Institute is an industry, evidence is required to be led and therefore such questions cannot be adjudicated in this writ application. Dutt is right in his contention that for the purpose of adjudication of the questions whether the employee is a workman or whether the Institute is an industry, evidence is required to be led and therefore such questions cannot be adjudicated in this writ application. It is for the petitioner to raise all these objections before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal can arrive at a just conclusion after the parties have led evidence on these disputed questions of fact. ( 9 ) BUT so far the authority of the State Government to refer the dispute is concerned, in my opinion, such question can be adjudicated without entering into any disputed question of fact. It is settled position of law that a Court can always take judicial notice of the provisions contained in any Act passed by the Parliament and in the instant case the Institute being governed by the provision of Institute of Technology Act, 1961, for the purpose of adjudicating whether the Institute is "run by or under the authority of Central Government", answer to such question can be ascertained from the provision of the Act itself. ( 10 ) I, therefore, propose to deal with the only question whether the State Government is the "appropriate Government" to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. ( 11 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating the aforesaid question the following provisions viz. Sections 1 (2), 9, 21, 22 (2), 24 (2), 27 (1), 31, 31 (2) (a), 31 (3), 35 (3), 37 of Institute of Technology Act, 1961 and 2 (a) of Industrial Disputes Act may be quoted hereunder:"1 (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act. 9 (1) The President of India shall be the visitor of every Institute. (2) The visitor may appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of any Institute and to hold inquiries into the affairs thereof and to report thereon in such manner as the visitor may direct. (3) Upon receipt of any such report, the visitor may take such action and issue such directions as he considers necessary in respect of any of the matters dealt with in the report and the Institute shall be bound to comply with such directions. (3) Upon receipt of any such report, the visitor may take such action and issue such directions as he considers necessary in respect of any of the matters dealt with in the report and the Institute shall be bound to comply with such directions. 21 For the purpose of enabling the Institutes to discharge their functions efficiently under this Act, the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, pay to each Institute in each financial year such sums of money and in such manner as it may think fit. 22 (2) All moneys credited to the Fund of any Institute shall be deposited in such banks or invested in such manner as the Institute may with the approval of the Central Government, decide. 24 (2) Where any such provident fund has been so constituted, the Central Government may declare that the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 shall apply to such fund as if it were a Government Provident Fund. 27 (1) The first Statutes of each Institute shall be framed by the Council with the previous approval of the visitor and a copy of the same shall be laid as soon as may be before such House of Parliament. 31 (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, there shall be established a central body to be called the Council. 31 (2) (a) The Minister-in-Charge of technical education in the Central Government, ex officio as Chairman. 31 (3) An officer of the Ministry of the Central Government concerned with technical education shall be nominated by that Government to act as the Secretary of the Council. 31 (2) (a) The Minister-in-Charge of technical education in the Central Government, ex officio as Chairman. 31 (3) An officer of the Ministry of the Central Government concerned with technical education shall be nominated by that Government to act as the Secretary of the Council. 35 (3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Chapter shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session of the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be or no effect, as the case may be; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of any thing previously done under that rule. 37 If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions, of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provision or give such direction not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty; 2. 37 If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions, of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provision or give such direction not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty; 2. (a) 'appropriate Government' means - (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under Section 5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948) or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under Section 3-A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under Section 5-A and Section 5-B, respectively of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Indian Airlines' and Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporations Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under Section 3, or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under Section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or the International Airports Authority of India constituted under Section 3 of the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971 (43 of 1971) or a Regional Rural Bank established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established under Section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oilfield, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government. " ( 12 ) MR. Basu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by referring to the aforesaid provisions contained in the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 tried to impress upon this Court that the Institute is run by or under the authority of the Central Government for the following reasons:" (a) The President of India is entitled to appoint one or more persons to review the progress of the Institute and to hold enquiries into the affairs thereof; on receipt of such report, the President can take any action or pass any direction as he considers necessary and the Institute will be bound by such action or direction. (b) For the purpose of enabling the Institute to discharge its function, the Central Government pays money in each financial year after approval by the Parliament. (c) Even for the purpose of depositing money in a particular bank or investing money in any manner, approval of Central Government is necessary. (d) The Central Government shall declare that the provisions of Provident Funds Act, 1925 shall apply to any provident fund, if constituted, as if it were a Government Provident Fund. (e) The first statute of the Institute shall be framed by the Council with the previous approval of the President of India and a copy thereof will be laid before Parliament. f) The Minister-in-Charge of technical education in the Central Government will be the ex officio Chairman of the Council and an officer of the said ministry will be nominated to act as the Secretary of the Council. (g) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any provision of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, the Central Government by order published in Official Gazette may pass necessary direction for removing such difficulties. " ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the question is whether the existence of the aforesaid circumstances showing control of the Central Government over the affairs of the Institute, will make it an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. " ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the question is whether the existence of the aforesaid circumstances showing control of the Central Government over the affairs of the Institute, will make it an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. ( 14 ) IT appears from the provisions contained in Section 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry, the appropriate Government will be only the Central Government in the following five categories of industries: (a) Any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, (b) A railway company, (c) Any controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, (d) 18 different establishments mentioned in Section 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (e) A banking or insurance company, a mine, an oilfield, a cantonment Board or a major port. ( 15 ) IT is therefore abundantly clear that the industries mentioned in Clauses (b) to (e) above cannot form part of (a) above; if any of the aforesaid four categories would form part of (a), then there was no necessity of separately mentioning them in addition to Clause (a) above. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, the writ petitioner admittedly does not fall within any of the categories (b) to (e) above and therefore unless it is established that the petitioner comes within category (a) above, the appropriate Government will not be the Central Government, but the State Government. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, the next question is whether the control of the Central Government as mentioned above by virtue of Institute of Technology Act, 1961 will make the petitioner an industry "run by or under the authority of the Central Government. " ( 18 ) IT is now settled position of law that the mere fact that entire share capital of a company has been contributed by the Central Government, all its shares are held by the President of India, certain Officers of the Central Government are its nominee in the management or that extensive control is vested with the Central Government, will not make it a company run by or under the authority of the Central Government. (See Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar (supra) ). (See Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar (supra) ). In order to come under the category (a) above, the industry must be run by a department of the Central Government itself such as Post and Telegraphs or Railways or one carried on by such department through the instrumentality of an agent. ( 19 ) BUT mere control of the Central Government over the affairs of a Corporation created under a statute does not suggest that such Corporation acts by or under the authority of the Central Government. If the Central Government has a dominant role to play in the affairs of such a statutory body, it is because such is the will of the legislature and the Central Government just obeys the commands of the legislature. Thus, such statutory bodies function under the authority of the Acts of the legislature which created them. For instance, reference may be made to the provisions contained in Air Corporation Act, 1953, Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 or Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 etc. where similar or even more powers have been given to the Central Government but for that reason 'air India', 'indian Airlines', 'life Insurance Corporation of India', or 'unit Trust of India' cannot be said to be establishments run by or under the authority of the Central Government. For the above reasons, those statutory authorities although controlled by the Central Government have been specifically mentioned in Section 2 (a) (i) of the Act to enable the Central Government to be the appropriate Government in case of any dispute concerning those establishments. But the petitioner's name has not been incorporated in Section 2 (a) (i) along with other 18 establishments particularly mentioned therein. Therefore even if the petitioner is held to be an industry controlled by the Central Government, State Government is the appropriate authority to refer the dispute. Therefore, there was no illegality on the part of the State Government in referring the dispute before the Tribunal below. ( 20 ) THE writ application is thus devoid of any substance and is dismissed. I have already indicated that I have not gone into the questions whether the private respondent is a workman or whether the petitioner is an industry and it is for the Tribunal below to decide such questions along with the disputes referred to it after taking evidence. No costs. I have already indicated that I have not gone into the questions whether the private respondent is a workman or whether the petitioner is an industry and it is for the Tribunal below to decide such questions along with the disputes referred to it after taking evidence. No costs. Later After this order is passed Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for stay of operation of this order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I stay the operation of this order till one week after reopening.