JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Balbhadra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Workmen. 2. One of the ground of challenge to the award in question by the petitioner, the Management of Central Silk Board, Sabour, is that the reference made by the State of Bihar was without jurisdiction, in as much as, the appropriate Government in terms of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is the Central Government. Obviously, such question going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court when raised by the petitioner in its written statement, as has been noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned award, had to be decided in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the other materials to show that the Board is controlled and governed directly by the Central Government a reference was also placed in the notification issued by the Central Government notifying 119 Central Establishment for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and since the name of the petitioners establishment was not in the notification, obviously the presumption was that the Central Government had not authorized the State Government for making reference of any industrial dispute to the Labour Court. 3. This Court is not impressed with the content of the notification as it is not an option of the Central Government to choose the establishment for conferring the jurisdiction of the State Government, but then when such question is raised before the Labour Court, that has to be answered in the light of the materials produced before it and by answering the question of law. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the question of jurisdiction was also pressed by relying on the certain judgments of the Apex Court being in the case of Burn and Company V/s. The Employees of the Company, reported in AIR 1957 SC 38 and in the case of Air India Corporation and Others V/s. United Labour Union and Others reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 645 . 4. Unfortunately, this Court would find that there is no discussion either in respect of the notification in question or of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court on the question of jurisdiction in the impugned award. 5. Mr. 4. Unfortunately, this Court would find that there is no discussion either in respect of the notification in question or of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court on the question of jurisdiction in the impugned award. 5. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, however, would try to distinguish the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in view of subsequent judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of "Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Versus National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors." reported in 2001 (7) S.C.C. 1 partly explaining and partly overruling the judgment in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra). 6. This Court would find that this question of jurisdiction has to be gone into on the basis of the materials on record especially the mode and manner of creation of Central Silk Board, the authorities and control of the Central Government, in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra). In fact, the approach of the Labour Court by giving one line finding in the impugned judgment that on perusal of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Industrial Disputes (Bihar Rules 1961), it had found the State of Bihar to be an appropriate Government for making reference, to say the least, is perfunctory approach. The question relating to jurisdiction cannot be decided in such a slipshod manner. 7. It is however made clear that the findings of the Labour court on the issue of the petitioner being not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the evidence on record as discussed in the impugned award and also keeping with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa" reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 . Similarly the finding of fact as with regard to workman Respondent being completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and non-compliance of statutory requirement of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act being based on appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary as discussed in length in the impugned award are absolutely correct and cannot be interfered by this Court. 8. 8. That being so, only the question as with regard to jurisdiction has to be remitted back to the Labour Court. The parties will be at liberty to lead their further evidences on this limited question of jurisdiction and as the reference is one dated 26.7.1994, this Court would direct the Labour Court to answer the question of jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The impugned award is accordingly set aside to the extent indicated above and the writ application is accordingly disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations and directions.