JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Both the writ petitions are analogous. The point involved in both of them is identical. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we have heard both the matters with the consent of counsel for parties. We are accordingly disposing of both of them by this common order. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 3425 of 2002, the National Aluminium Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NALCO') seeks to assail the validity of the order dated July 29, 2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Control), Bhubaneswar in ID Case No. 305 of 2001. In W.P. (C) No. 3426 of 2002. 'NALCO' seeks quashing of the order dated July 29, 2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the said Tribunal in I.D. Case No. 308 of 2001. The Tribunal while deciding a preliminary issue by the impugned orders has held that although after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., the State Government has become the 'appropriate Government' for NALCO, the present references having been made prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Government of India which had made the references was the appropriate Government and, therefore, the reference made by it which are pending consideration are valid. 3. Following are the disputes which have been referred to by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Bhubaneswar for adjudication. W.P. (C) No. 3425/2002 "Whether 10% calculation to be made as per Clause 4.3 of Tripartite Settlement dated, December 14, 1995 will be done only on the basic pay or after adding basic pay with F.D.A." WP (C) No. 3426/2002 "Whether the action of the management of NALCO in engaging the 67 workmen shown in the list attached, initially on direct basis subsequently through contractor, justified ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled? 4. Shri Rath appearing for the petitioner contends that for NALCO the 'appropriate Government' is the State Government both under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In support of this contention, he places reliance on paragraph-41 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra). In support of this contention, he places reliance on paragraph-41 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra). According to him, since the present references were made by the Government of India, they are null and void and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. Shri Sahoo appearing for the Workers' Union on the other hand submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) is prospective in nature and, therefore, the references made by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Bhubaneswar for adjudication are valid. 5. It may be stated that the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Bihar and Others, has held that so far as Heavy Engineering Corporation is concerned, the 'appropriate Government' is the State Government. It elaborately dealt with the question of 'appropriate Government' and concluded that, the mere fact that the entire share capital of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited was contributed by the Central Government and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government does not make any difference. The Company and the shareholders being distinct entities, this fact does not make the Company an agent either of the President or the Central Government. In that case, the judgment was by a two-Judge Bench. Validity of the ratio of that case was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) and in paragraph- 41 of the judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the finding that the State Government is the 'appropriate Government' with regard to Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. 6. NALCO is also like that of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Government of India Enterprises and has its Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar, Angul, within the State of Orissa. Paragraphs I and II of the Memorandum of Association of NALCO provide that it is a Company which is a Government of India Undertaking and its registered office is in the State of Orissa. The main objects for which the Company has been established are enumerated in Paragraph-Ill of the Memorandum of Association. Some of them are as follows: "3. Paragraphs I and II of the Memorandum of Association of NALCO provide that it is a Company which is a Government of India Undertaking and its registered office is in the State of Orissa. The main objects for which the Company has been established are enumerated in Paragraph-Ill of the Memorandum of Association. Some of them are as follows: "3. To act as an entrepreneur to identify new areas of economic investments and to undertake or help in the undertaking of such investments. 4. To formulate and recommend to the Central Government: (a) A national policy for the development of aluminium and related input Industries and to advise them on all policy and technical matters; and (b) to act as an instrument of the policy of the Central Government subject to such directives as may be issued by the President from time to time, with a view to exercise : control over strategic areas of economy. Clause 32 of the Articles of Association provides that Directors of the Company may from time to time borrow and/or secure the payment of any sum or sums of money for the purposes of the Company, by means of a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board subject to provisions of Section 292 of the Companies Act. Clause 62 deals with the Constitution of Board of Directors which lays down that the President shall from time to time determine in writing the number of Directors of the. Company which shall not be less than four and not more than eighteen: The distribution of share holding as on October 30, 2002 would show that Government of India was holding 100 per cent shares till 1991-92 since incorporation. Now the distribution has been made amongst prompters and others. 7. The fact-situation prevailing in the case of NALCO is the same as that of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, we have no hesitation to hold, that the 'appropriate Government' as defined in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in relation to industrial disputes concerning NALCO is the State Government. 8. 8. Since the reference is pending before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Bhubaneswar are at a preliminary stage and for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders of the Industrial Tribunal (Central) are not sustainable in law. They are hereby quashed. It is open to the Workers Union to raise dispute before the appropriate forum of the State Government if it so likes. Both the writ petitions, are accordingly allowed. Pradipta Ray, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed