JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The petitioner, a public limited company, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Bhubaneswar, (hereinafter called 'the Labour Court') in Tr. I.D. Case No. 330 of 2001 deciding two preliminary issues and finding that O.P. No. 1 is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' hereinafter) and that since the cause action arose within the State of Orissa, the Labour Court at Orissa had jurisdiction to answer the reference made by the appropriate Government, i.e., the Government of India (Ministry of Labour). 2. The short facts necessary for decision in the present writ petition may be stated thus : The petitioner, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, is engaged in oil exploration and drilling operations by entering into contracts with Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Oil India Limited, etc. for the purpose of drilling oil in the Arbian Seas, Bombay High Seas, etc. The petitioner for execution of its contracts engaged O.P. No. 1 (hereinafter described as the opposite party) as a Radio Officer on its rigs on contract basis by letter dated 9.3.1994 (Annexure-1). It is stated that after completion of its drilling project/work at Bay of Bengal, Paradeep Coast, during November-December, 1996, as there was no work available with the petitioner, by a telegram dated 10.4.1997 (Annexure-2) the petitioner informed the opposite party that his services stood terminated with effect from 10.4.1997 and his dues would be settled shortly. By letter dated 25.4.1997 the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 33,045/- to the opposite party towards his legal dues at his residential address. In July, 1997 the opposite party as complainant filed a complaint case being Complaint (ULP) No. 350 of 1997 before the 12th Labour Court at Mumbai, Bandra, u/s 28 read with Section 30 with Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In July, 1997 the opposite party as complainant filed a complaint case being Complaint (ULP) No. 350 of 1997 before the 12th Labour Court at Mumbai, Bandra, u/s 28 read with Section 30 with Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court, Mumbai, by its order dated 24.11.1997 granted interim relief to the complainant, i.e., the present opposite party, directing the respondent, i.e., the present petitioner, to allow the complainant to work on his previous post wherever work of the respondent was in progress within 15 days and in the event the same would not be possible, then the respondent would deposit 50% of the wages of the complainant on or before 7th day of every month till disposal of the main complaint. On 3.2.1999 the petitioner-respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, Mumbai, stating therein that as the respondent was in requirement of a Radio Officer in its sister concern, namely, "Essar Steel Limited" at Hazira, the complainant was offered such employment, but he declined to accept the same even though the said post carried higher emolument than that was paid to the complainant in his previous engagement, and prayed for a direction to the complainant to accept the job and report for work on or before 19.2.1999. Observing that there was neither any response nor the complainant was present at the hearing, the Labour Court, Mumbai, by the order passed on 9.3.1999 discharged the respondent from its obligation of offering a job or depositing the monthly wages as directed in its earlier order dated 24.11.1997. While the matter stood thus, on 4.6.1999 the present opposite party filed an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Orissa, Bhubaneswar, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to reinstate him as Radio Officer and to pay him full back wages from 10.4.1997 as well as appropriate compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by him. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar, who took up the matter, called upon both the parties for a conciliation which ultimately failed. However, on the failure report, the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, passed an order on 15.2.2000 to the effect that an industrial dispute existed between the parties and referred the same to the Labour Court at Orissa, i.e., the Central Govt. However, on the failure report, the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, passed an order on 15.2.2000 to the effect that an industrial dispute existed between the parties and referred the same to the Labour Court at Orissa, i.e., the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication, which was registered as Tr. I.D. Case No. 330 of 2001. The petitioner then filed an application before the Labour Court with a prayer to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue but the same was rejected by the Labour Court by its order dated 3.4.2001, vide Annexure-3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of rejection before this Court in O.J.C. No. 6486 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 26.7.2001 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Labour Court to decide the issue raised before it by the petitioner within a stipulated period. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 2745 of 2002 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed an agreed order on 15.4.2002 directing the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, to raise and decide the following two preliminary issues, namely : "1. Whether Respondent No. 3 was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ? 2. Whether Labour Tribunal at Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute ?" 3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Central Govt. by its order dated 15.2.2000 while referring the dispute indicated two questions for answer by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, namely : (1) Whether the dispute was within the jurisdiction of Central Govt. and (2) If so, whether action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri Prakash Kumar Raul was legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman was entitled ? 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.4.2002 of the Apex Court, the Labour Court by its order dated 19.8.2002 (Annexure-4), which is impugned in this writ petition, decided the two preliminary issues framed by the Supreme Court holding that the present opposite party was a 'workman' within the definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act and that as the order of termination of his service was served on him when he was working in Orissa, the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Industrial Tribunal, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. While deciding the issue whether the 2nd party, i.e., the present O.P., was a workman, the Labour Court held that as the Management, i.e., the present petitioner, had described the 2nd party-Prakash Kumar Raul as workman before the Labour Court, the Apex Court as also in the High Court, the Management could not now take the plea that he was not a workman. While deciding the 2nd issue, the Labour Court held that as the first party-Management had throughout taken the stand that the Govt. of India was the competent authority to make the reference, and since the Govt. of India has made the reference to the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar, the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction to answer the reference. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the provisions of Section 2 of the Act in order to substantiate his argument that the Central Govt. was not the appropriate Govt. in the present case because the petitioner-company is a public limited company over which the Central Govt. has no control in any manner whatsoever. Drawing attention of this Court to the definition of 'workman' in Section 2(s) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appropriate Govt. would be the State Govt. and as such it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Govt. to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appropriate Govt. would be the State Govt. as per Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Repelling the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the petitioner-company having got a licence from the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and as it is working under a licence from the Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Oil India Ltd., it is very much a company carrying on its objects under the authority of the Central Govt. and, therefore, the appropriate Govt. would be the Central Govt. 6. and, therefore, the appropriate Govt. would be the Central Govt. 6. Fact remains that the Apex Court framed two issues and directed the Labour Court to decide those issues as preliminary issues. But I find that the Labour Court has not dealt with the aforesaid issues in their proper perspective and decided issue No. 1 only saying that the O.P. was a workman because the petitioner has described him as a workman in different stages of the litigation and so far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the finding of the Labour Court is that because the management had throughout taken the stand that the Govt. of India was the competent authority to make the reference, the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction to answer the reference. In my considered opinion, the Labour Court has not decided the preliminary issues framed by the Apex Court in their proper perspective, but in a casual manner, for which I am inclined to remand the matter to the Labour Court for a reconsideration and for deciding the issues framed by the Apex Court afresh. Learned counsel for both sides placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., but as I am remanding the matter to the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issues, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the same as it may prejudice either party. The Labour Court while deciding the aforesaid issues shall, however, take into consideration the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and decide the matter within a period of six months of the receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, In Tr.I.D. Case No. 330 of 2001 (Annexure-4) is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh disposal in the light of the directions and observations made above. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed