H. V. G. RAMESH, J, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, petitioner has sought for to quash the order of reference dated 8-12-03 passed by the 1st respondent at annexure-A and consequently, the proceedings before the Tribunal in ref. No. 164/03 by issuing writ of certiorari and for such other reliefs. ( 2 ) THIS Court had earlier disposed of this matter on 24-6-05 allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the impugned order of reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore with a direction to the 1st respondent to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore within two months for disposal of the case. Of course, the stand taken by the petitioner therein while disposing of the matter is that petitioner is not an industry and the appropriate Government is the Central government and it is the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore which has territorial jurisdiction and not the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore. Even the Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 had no objection to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. However, this order has been challenged before the division bench of this Court in writ Appeal No. 3341/05 wherein the division bench has observed that, the labour Court cannot go beyond the point of reference made by the competent authority since already reference was made by the state Government and while deciding the point of dispute the Industrial tribunal cannot frame an issue with regard to whether the appellant is an industry and whether the appropriate Government to make a reference is the Central Government or the State Government and whether the third respondent/union which is not recognised by the management could have raised a dispute, it is ordered that these are the issues to be considered by the Single Judge and it cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the earlier order passed by the Learned Single Judge was set aside while remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. Hence, this petition is taken up once again for consideration on the above points. ( 3 ) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the point. Hence, this petition is taken up once again for consideration on the above points. ( 3 ) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the point. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Manipal Academy of Higher education is a deemed university enacted under Section 3 of the university Grants Commission Act of 1956 and it is an Educational institution governed by the guidelines of UGC in terms of memorandum of Association executed by the peitioner under the advice of the University Grants Commission. The provisions of the industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is not applicable to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the petitioner. The petitioner/ University has been revising the pay scales from time to time and emoluments are being paid substantially and one such revision is being made during 1996. During 2002 in addition to normal annual increase in the rates of basic and dearness allowance the emoluments were further hiked to its employees. The 2nd respondent Non-teaching Staff Association has unnecessarily disputed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner regarding the pay revision made by the petitioner in the year 1996 alleging that there is a discrimination in the revision of the pay scales. After holding the conciliation proceedings on several occasions reference was made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner through the State Government to adjudicate the matter by the industrial tribunal. Hence, this petition assailing the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour commissioner and the State Government in referring the matter to the industrial Tribunal as a matter of reference contending that non teaching employees association of the petitioner university is not an industry and also it is clear from the order of the division bench that these issues are to be considered by this Court. ( 5 ) IT is the submission of the learned Addl. Government advocate that asper the report submitted by the Assistant Labour commissioner, the State Government is the authority and it has got the power to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and also that the 2nd respondent is the industry as per the definition of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Government advocate that asper the report submitted by the Assistant Labour commissioner, the State Government is the authority and it has got the power to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and also that the 2nd respondent is the industry as per the definition of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 / association submitted that this Association is the non teaching staff of the deemed university and it comes within the definition of industry as per Section 2 of I. D. Act which specifies the criteria of employer and employee relationship and it is also covered by the decision of the supreme Court in the case of BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY vs a. RAJAPPA. It is a recognised union and there is a memorandum of understanding between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that 2nd respondent Association can very well move the State Government as the appropriate government and not the central Government. ( 7 ) IN the light of the arguments advanced let me consider, (i) Whether the appropriate Government is the central Government or the State government? and (ii) Whether respondent No. 2 comes within the definition of industry as per the Indsutrial disputes Act, 1947? ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a notification issued by the Central Government in the gazette of India by the Ministry of Human Resources Development dated 24-4-00 wherein as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission act of 1956 on the advice of the UGC, the Central Government has declared that Manipal Institute of Technology and College of pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal is included under the ambit of a deemed university for the purpose of the Act. Further, he also relied upon the judgment in the case of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA ltd. Further, he also relied upon the judgment in the case of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA ltd. , AND OTHERS vs NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT workers AND OTHERS wherein the Apex Court referring to article 12 of the Constitution regarding the Instrumentalities of the government has held that, 'while discharging public functions and duties the Government Companies/ Corporation / Societies which are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government must be subjected to the same limitations in the filed of public law as the government itself does not lead to the inference that they become agents of the Cetral/state government for all purposes so as to bind such Government for all their acts, liabilities and obligations under various Central and / or state Acts or under private law. ' Accordingly, contended that it is the central Government which is appropriate Government to pass the order of reference and the impugned order passed by the State government is nonest as it is not competent to refer the matter to industrial Tribunal. ( 9 ) IT is needless to say that under the provisions of the UGC act the petitioner Institution is recognised as a deemed university. While referring to Article 12 of the Constitution the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 3527 has observed that definition of appropriate Government combines three alternatives (i) any industry earned on by the Central Government, any (ii) any industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government, (iii) any industry carried onby a railway company and it is further held that an industry being carried on under the authority of the Central Governmnet, cannot be equated with any industry carried or by the Central Government itself in the instant case, repondent No. 2 is a Non-teaching Staff Association which has got a relation with the management and employees of the petitioner and a systematic activity is being carried out. In the Black's dictionary the word authority refers to right to exercise power to implement and enforce the laws. Ultimately, UGC is the authority to exercise the powers as per the definition provided under the authority having regard to the nature of the establishment of the petitioner institution and the same has been recognised as deemed university under the provisions of the central legislation. So, thus the appropriate government is the Central Government. Ultimately, UGC is the authority to exercise the powers as per the definition provided under the authority having regard to the nature of the establishment of the petitioner institution and the same has been recognised as deemed university under the provisions of the central legislation. So, thus the appropriate government is the Central Government. In so far as the 2nd respondent association is concerned as noted earlier their exists a relationship of the management and the employees and in the memorandum of understanding between the management of the petitioner with that of its employees of the non-teaching staff there is a amicable settlement of certain of the conditions between the two. Under the circumstances, the say of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent association is not recognised one by the management does not hold water. ( 10 ) IN so far as the second aspect as to whether the 2nd respondent/non-teaching Staff Association is an industry or not, apart from the basic principles regarding the systematic running of the organisation there is a relationship of employer and employee, of course these two aspects are satisfied. Apart from that in W. P. No. 19063/00 filed before this Court by the very 2nd respondent / association the petitioner herein has filed the statement of objections contending that this university is an industry and the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act of 1947 squarely apply in the matters of resolution of disputes and differences in service conditions between the university and its employees. When the stand o f the petitioner is clear that it is an industry and that the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, I need not once again deal with this aspect. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, while holding that the petitoner/ university is recognized under the Central Government and the appropriate Government is the Central Government, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while setting aside the order of reference made by the state Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. However, it is for the 2nd respondent / Association to move the appropriate government to seek the redressal.