Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing, immediately. 2. The common question of law involved in both the petitions is; whether appropriate Government to refer the industrial disputes to the Industrial Court is the Central Government or the State Government. The facts of the case may be stated in brief. In the first petition, the petitioner Ganpat Bhujade claims that he was working with the respondent as Helper on daily wages since March1978. He was continuously working on that post for a period of more than one year. In spite of this, he was not regularized on the said job while some of his juniors were made permanent on the post of Helper. The permanent post of Helper carried basic pay scale of Rs. 196-232. In spite of his requests, the petitioner was not made permanent on the post of Khalasi or Helper. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint, ULPA No. 229/1983 under Section 28 read with Items 6 and 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act for the sake of brevity). After hearing the parties, the Industrial Court passed order dated 30.09.1991 directing the respondents to make the petitioner permanent as Khalasi from the date of complaint and to give him all the benefits of the post including the salary attached to that post. That order was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 214/1992. This Court, in that petition, did not disturb the findings of fact. However, this Court remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court on the limited question as to whether the State Government is the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court or Central Government is the appropriate Government, as pleaded by the respondents. The Industrial Court, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2005 holding that the Central Government is an appropriate Government and not the State Government. In the result, the complaint came to be dismissed with costs. 3. In Writ Petition No. 6531/2005, the petitioner is original complainant. According to him, he was appointed as Khalasi/Helper on daily wages in the year 1979. In the result, the complaint came to be dismissed with costs. 3. In Writ Petition No. 6531/2005, the petitioner is original complainant. According to him, he was appointed as Khalasi/Helper on daily wages in the year 1979. He was also getting work on the weekly basis except the holidays, he was in continuous service and he had completed 240 days continuous service on 01.09.1980. According to him, after having completed one year continuous service he should have been regularised on the said post. However, some other persons were made permanent but the petitioner was not made the permanent employee. According to him, he was being paid Rs. 66/- per day while permanent post carries a particular pay scale and the permanent employee gets much more salary. He filed complaint, ULP No.1114/1996 under Section 28 read with Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. .4. The respondent contested the complaint and denied that the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi .or Labour on daily wages and he had completed one year continuous service. It was contended that the respondent is a Laboratory established by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (For short .CSIR.), which is under full control and authority of the Central Government. The CSIR is National Laboratory having its Headquarters at Dhanbad and has its Laboratories at different places. The Central Government is the appropriate Government and the Industrial Court in the State of Maharashtra has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. It is also contended that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to prepare sample for analysis on the basis of fixed charges per sample. The sample work was not available throughout the year nor he was on permanent nature. The petitioner was neither daily wage earner nor daily wages were paid to him nor his name was on the muster roll. He used to prepare samples for laboratory for which he was being paid. Thus, he was being paid for the specific work done by him. The respondent also contended that it is not an Industry nor the petitioner was a Workman and hence the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act are not applicable to respondent. 5. He used to prepare samples for laboratory for which he was being paid. Thus, he was being paid for the specific work done by him. The respondent also contended that it is not an Industry nor the petitioner was a Workman and hence the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act are not applicable to respondent. 5. Thelearned Member, Industrial Court framed several issues and after hearing the parties and going through the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondent is an Industry and the petitioner is a Workman. However, the Industrial Court also came to the conclusion that the appropriate Government for the respondent is Central Government and not the State Government and, therefore, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act are not applicable. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent was engaged in unfair labour practice as defined in item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTUL & PULP Act. In the result, the complaint came to be dismissed. 6. The crux of both the matters is, whether the State Government is an appropriate Authority or the Central Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court. .7. Section 2 of the MRTU & PULP Act provides that the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Maharashtra and under Sub Section (3) it is laid down that this Act shall apply to the industries to which Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 applies and also to any other industry as defined under clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the State Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning such industry is the appropriate Government under the Act. From this, it is clear that the MRTU & PULP Act is applicable to the industries where the State Government is appropriate Government. Under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, .appropriate Government. has been defined. From this, it is clear that the MRTU & PULP Act is applicable to the industries where the State Government is appropriate Government. Under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, .appropriate Government. has been defined. In view of the said definition, the Central Government is an appropriate Government 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 the specific industrial establishment mentioned in Section 2 (a-i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government shall be the .appropriate Government. 8. The Industrial Court constituted under Section 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act has jurisdiction in relation to the industrial disputes where the State Government is the appropriate Government. If in the present dispute the State Government is appropriate Government, the complaint is tenable and the Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to pass appropriate orders. However, if the appropriate Government in relation to the disputes relating to the respondents is Central Government, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act will not be applicable and the Industrial Court will have no jurisdiction. 9. Thelearned Member, Industrial Court, dealt with the question about the appropriate Government and narrated the facts pertaining to the respondents in detail. The Industrial Court noted that the CSIR is a Society under the control of the Government of India and respondent-Central Fuel Research Institute (For short .CFRI.) is one of the entities of the CSIR. Appointment orders of the staff are issued by the head Office of the CSIR at Dhanbad. CSIR was first established on 12.03.1942 under the Societies Registration Act 1860 by Governor General of India. After independence, the Rules and Constitution of the said society were amended and as per the rules and bye-laws presently in force, the Prime Minister of India is President and Minister of Science and Technology is the Vice President of the CSIR. The other members are either ex officio or they are appointed by the Central Government. After independence, the Rules and Constitution of the said society were amended and as per the rules and bye-laws presently in force, the Prime Minister of India is President and Minister of Science and Technology is the Vice President of the CSIR. The other members are either ex officio or they are appointed by the Central Government. All the funds to run the CSIR are provided by the Central Government for which the budgetary provision is made in the budget of the Central Government and it is submitted to the Parliament. The accounts of CSIR are audited by Comptroller and Auditor General of India and its report is submitted before the Parliament. The CSIR as well as CFRI are under the control of the Central Government. The learned Industrial Court has held that in view of these circumstances, the appropriate Government in respect of the CSIR as well as CFRI is Central Government and not the State Government. The learned Industrial Court tried to find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others etc. ..vs.. National Union Water Front Workers and others etc.; AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3527 10. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others etc. (supra) was decided by seven Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. After referring to the definition of “appropriate Government”. In the Industrial Disputes Act, their Lordships observed in para 28 as follows:- “28. Now, going back to the definition of the said expression, it combines three alternatives, viz. (a) any industry carried on by the Central Government; (b) any industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government; and (c) any industry carried on by a railway company. Alternatives (a) and (c) indicate cases of any industry carried on directly by the Central Government or a railway company. They are too clear to admit of any polemic. In regard to alternative (b), surely, an industry being carried on under the authority of the Central Government cannot be equated with any industry carried on by the Central Government itself. This leaves us to construe the words “under the authority of the Central Government.” The key word in them is authority. In para 29, meaning of word Authority from different dictionaries is discussed and then Their Lordships observed in para nos. 30 and 31 as follows:- “30. This leaves us to construe the words “under the authority of the Central Government.” The key word in them is authority. In para 29, meaning of word Authority from different dictionaries is discussed and then Their Lordships observed in para nos. 30 and 31 as follows:- “30. From the above discussion, it follows that the phrase any industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government implies an industry which is carried on by virtue of, pursuant to, conferment of, grant of, or delegation of power or permission by the Central Government to a Central Government Company or other Government Company/undertaking. To put it differently, if there is lack of conferment of power or permission by the Central Government to a Government Company or undertaking it would disable such a company/ undertaking to carry on the industry in question. 31. In interpreting the said phrase, support is sought to be drawn by the leaned counsel for the contract labour from the cases laying down the principles as to under what circumstances a Government company or undertaking will fall within the meaning of State or other authorities in Art. 12 of the Constitution. We shall preface our discussion of those cases by indicating that for purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution the question whether a Government Company or undertaking is State within the meaning of Art. 12 is germane. It is important to notice that in these cases the pertinent question is appropriateness of the Government-which is the appropriate Government within the meaning of CLRA Act; whether, the Central or the State Government, is the appropriate Government in regard to the industry carried on by the Central/State Government Company or any undertaking and not whether such Central/State Government, company or undertaking come within the meaning of Art. 12.” After referring to several authorities, their Lordships further observed in para 39 as follows:- “39. There cannot be any dispute that all the Central Government companies with which we are dealing here are not and cannot be equated to Central Government though they may be State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. We have held above that being the instrumentality or agency for the Central Government would not by itself amount to having the authority of the Central Government to carry on that particular industry. We have held above that being the instrumentality or agency for the Central Government would not by itself amount to having the authority of the Central Government to carry on that particular industry. Therefore, it will be incorrect to say that in relation to any establishment of a Central Government Company/undertaking, the appropriate Government will be the Central Government. To hold that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to any establishment, the Court must be satisfied that the particular industry in question is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. If this aspect is kept in mind it would be clear that the Central Government will be the .appropriate Government. under the CLRA Act and the I.D. Act provided the industry in question is carried on by a Central Government company/an undertaking under the authority of the Central Government. Such an authority may be conferred, either by a Statute or by virtue of relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power. Where the authority, to carry on any industry for or on behalf of the Central Government is conferred on the Government company/any undertaking by the Statute under which it is created, no further question arises. But, if it is not so, the question that arises is whether there is any conferment or authority on the Government company any undertaking by the Central Government to carry on the industry in question. This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstance of each case”. 11. From the above observations, it is clear that the Central Government will be appropriate Government under the Contract Labour Regulation Act as well as Industrial Disputes Act provided the industry in question is carried on by the Central Government Company or an undertaking under the authority of the Central Government. Such an authority may be conferred either by Statute or by virtue of relationship of principal and agent or delegation of powers. Where the question is about conferment or authority by Central Government to carry on an industry, this is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts of the case. Such an authority may be conferred either by Statute or by virtue of relationship of principal and agent or delegation of powers. Where the question is about conferment or authority by Central Government to carry on an industry, this is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts of the case. In para 46 Their Lordships declared that the criteria to determine whether the Central Government is an appropriate Government is; the industry must be carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and not that the Company or undertaking is an instrumentality or an agency of the Central Government for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. 12. This legal position will have to be borne in mind while deciding the question, whether the respondents are Industries or Companies run by or under the authority of the Central Government. Admittedly, the respondent is only a local office of the CSIR and it has no independent entity or existence. Admittedly, the CSIR is, strictly speaking, not a Government Company registered under the Companies Act and, therefore, it could be said that it is not being run by the Central Government. The question is, whether it is run under the authority of the Central Government. 13. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others; (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 111; direct question involved was, whether the CSIR is an authority or an instrumentality of the Central Government and thus “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. This was again a judgment decided by the Constitution Bench of Seven Judges and question was to find out whether the CSIR is a State instrumentality. Thus, the facts and circumstances are relevant for the decision of the present petition. .14. The history about the constitution of the CSIR has been given from para 42 of the said judgment. It reveals that on the basis of Resolution dated 111.1941 passed by the Legislative Assembly, the Government of India constituted CSIR. It was duly registered on 12.03.1942. The CSIR was created by the Central Government to carry on in an organized manner, what was being done earlier by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government. Two research bodies, which were previously .part of the department of Commerce have since been subsumed in the CSIR. 15. It was duly registered on 12.03.1942. The CSIR was created by the Central Government to carry on in an organized manner, what was being done earlier by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government. Two research bodies, which were previously .part of the department of Commerce have since been subsumed in the CSIR. 15. In para 44 of the said judgment, the objects and functions of the CSIR were noted and then in para 45 it was observed that the objects in the Memorandum of Association of the CSIR manifestly demonstrate that the CSIR was set up in the national interest to further the economic welfare of the society by fostering planned industrial development in the country and such a function is fundamental to the governance of the country. The Prime Minister of India is ex officio President of the society and the Minister in charge of the ministry or department, dealing with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research shall be the ex officio Vice President of Society. The Minister in charge of the Finance and Industry shall also be ex officio member and members of the Governing Body and Chairman of the Advisory Board are the other members. Any other person may also be appointed as member of CSIR by President of the Society i.e. Prime Minister of India. Ex officio members of the Governing body are appointed by Government of India. Director General of the Governing Body, who is Secretary of CSIR is also appointed by Government of India. Those members, who are not ex officio are appointed by the Prime Minister as the President of CSIR. This shows total control of Government of India. Even the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are made applicable to the employees of the CSIR. The Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the disputes pertaining to the service conditions of the employees of CSIR. As per bye-law 20, the CSIR cannot even lay down or change the terms and conditions of service of its employees and any other alteration in the bye-laws can be carried out only with the approval of the Government of India. 16. Initially, capital was provided by the Central Government for CSIR. As per bye-law 20, the CSIR cannot even lay down or change the terms and conditions of service of its employees and any other alteration in the bye-laws can be carried out only with the approval of the Government of India. 16. Initially, capital was provided by the Central Government for CSIR. The Supreme Court noted that as per the statement made before the Supreme Court, at least 70% of the funds of CSIR are made available from the grants made by the Government of India and remaining funds came from different sources. The budget estimates are prepared by the Governing Body keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time and apart from an internal audit, accounts of CSIR are required to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and placed before the table of both the Houses of Parliament as per Rule 69. 17. In para 58 of the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that in the event of dissolution, unlike other registered societies, the members of the CSIR have no say in the distribution of its assets and under clause 5 of the Memorandum of Association, on winding up or dissolution of CSIR any property remaining after payment of all debts shall have to be dealt with in such manner as the Government of India may determine. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that that the CSIR is .State. within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. .18. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas .(supra), Their Lordships were only trying to find out whether the CSIR is an instrumentality or agency of the State and as such .State. within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel that does not give finding that the Central Government is an appropriate authority. The learned counsel contended that as held in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors. etc. (supra) merely because certain agency or instrumentality is a “State” within the meaning of Articled 12 of the Constitution, it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is the State Government. The learned counsel contended that as held in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors. etc. (supra) merely because certain agency or instrumentality is a “State” within the meaning of Articled 12 of the Constitution, it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is the State Government. It is necessary to find out, whether a particular institution or establishment is being run under the authority of the Central Government to come to the conclusion that the Central Government is an appropriate Authority. Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the CSIR was founded, its control over it by the Central Government, provisions of its funds, preparation of its budget as per the guidelines made by the Central Government and provisions about the running of Laboratories and also distribution of funds in case of its winding up or its dealing with rules, there no doubt that the CSIR is directly functioning under the authority of the Central Government. If the objects and functions, as noted above, are taken into consideration, it leaves no doubt that the basic function of CSIR was not to run any business and to earn profit. Its main function was the promotion, guidance and coordination of scientific and industrial research in India; establishment or development and assistance to special institutions or existing institutions for scientific study of problems affecting particular industries and trade; establishment and award of research studentship and fellowships; utilisation of results of the researches conducted under the auspices of the Council towards the development of industry in country; establishment, maintenance and management of laboratories, workshops etc. to further the scientific and industrial research etc. 19. The CSIR has established its main laboratory at Dhanbad and in different areas, it has established certain laboratories mainly for the research purpose. It is true that, at the request of the private industry, some research work is undertaken and samples are analysed and for which certain fee is charged. However, the laboratories in the different regions also directly function under the control of the Central Laboratory at Dhanbad and that Central Laboratory works directly under the control of CSIR As pointed out from the facts and circumstance, the CSIR itself is under the direct control of the Central Government and it is presided over by none other than the Prime Minister of India. .20. .20. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on several cases including Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others ..vs.. Novartis India Ltd. and another; (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 591; in support of his contention that if an industry has branches in different States, the State Government, where cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen, will have jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute to the Industrial Court. In the Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others (supra) respondent Novartis India Ltd. was a Company registered under the Companies Act. Admittedly that company was not run by or under the authority of the Central Government. It had different industrial unites in several States including West Bengal. Apart from that, the dispute had arisen in Calcutta .and, therefore, the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the Industrial Court. It was held that because the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal, the State Government was the appropriate Government to refer the matter. In my considered opinion, the ratio in the Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondent is not a company run by a private body as pointed out earlier. It is an institution or society run directly under the authority and control of the Central Government. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on Meenakshi Patel & Ors. ..vs. Engineering Export Pomotion Council & Ors.; 2001 III CLR 747 wherein the respondent was a Company under the Companies Act and was established to support, protect, maintain, increase and promote the export of engineering goods and such methods as will be necessary or expedite to keep in constant communication with mercantile and public bodies throughout the world with a view to take appropriate and necessary measures for maintaining or increasing the exports of engineering goods. After considering the Memorandum of Association of the Council, it was held that even though the said Council is not “controlled industry” within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, it is certainly an .Industry. which is carried under the authority of the Central Government. In view of this, it was held that the Central Government is an appropriate Authority and not the State Government. 9.22. which is carried under the authority of the Central Government. In view of this, it was held that the Central Government is an appropriate Authority and not the State Government. 9.22. In view of the facts and circumstance narrated above, I am in agreement with the Industrial Court that the Central Government is an appropriate authority and not the State Government in respect of the respondents. Therefore, I see no material to interfere in the dismissal of the complaints by the Industrial Court. 10.23. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged accordingly with no order as to costs.