Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 68 (ORI)

S. M. S. PLANT TALCHER v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-02-03

S.K.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The petitioners assail the order dated May 14, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 354/2001, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the proceeding was rejected. The first party-Management filed an application challenging the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the S.M.S. Plant at Talcher, where the workmen-opposite parties were employed, is a factory registered under the Factories Act in the State of Odisha. Therefore, it is contended that the appropriate Government in respect of the first party management i.e. the petitioner is the State Government u/s 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the reference by the Central Government is illegal being without jurisdiction and the Tribunal is also devoid of any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and hence, the case should be dismissed. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Site Mix Slurry plant, in short S.M.S. plant, is a separate unit of I.B.P. It produces slurry used for blasting purposes after mixing the same with other chemical components. The slurry produced in the plant is not explosive. The explosives stored in the Plant are used for blasting in the coal mines of Mahanadi Coal Fields on contract basis. It further reveals that the work at the Talcher plant is of temporary and intermittent nature. It is also not disputed that the S.M.S. plant at Talcher does not deal with petroleum products. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the dispute in the Tribunal, the I.B.P. was merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Accordingly, the petitioner company has filed an application to change the cause title of the first party management before the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. But it is not disputed that by virtue of such merger, the status of S.M.S. plant at Talcher has not undertaken any change and it remains as before. 3. The workman on the other hand contended that the IOCL (IBP Division) is an industry carried on, by or under the authority of the Central Government. The Standing Orders applicable to the workman have been certified by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). 3. The workman on the other hand contended that the IOCL (IBP Division) is an industry carried on, by or under the authority of the Central Government. The Standing Orders applicable to the workman have been certified by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has notified the Unit (I/C) of the S.M.S. Plant at Talcher to be the "occupier". This fact goes to show that the S.M.S. plant at Talcher is wholly controlled by the Central Government as per Section 2(n)(iii) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Notification dated May 5, 2008 so issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Act rescinds the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide No. S.O. 556 (E) dated July 3, 1998, but the latter does not include the name of Indian Oil Corporation Limited or I.B.P. company in the schedule of Central Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations and autonomous bodies in respect of which all powers exercisable by the Central; Government were also made exercisable by the State Government cannot be stated to be the appropriate Government with regard to the 1st Party-Management. It is further urged that under the Explosives Act, license to deal with the explosives has been granted to the first party-Management by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur. The company also follows the safety measures at mines site as per the guidelines prescribed by the Director General of Mines Safety, Bhubaneswar Region. The workmen disputes the assertion that since the S.M.S. plant at Talcher is registered under the Factories Act in the State of Odisha, it is carried on or overseen by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Odisha. It is submitted that the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers only exercises his supervising control but not the managerial control over the plant. Therefore, the State Government cannot be held to be the appropriate Government in this case. 4. It is further pleaded that the conciliation proceedings were held between the 1st party-Management and the 2nd party workman before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and after failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter/dispute was referred to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, who thereafter, made a reference to the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. 4. It is further pleaded that the conciliation proceedings were held between the 1st party-Management and the 2nd party workman before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and after failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter/dispute was referred to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, who thereafter, made a reference to the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. Hence, it is contended that the Central Government is the appropriate government and the reference is very much, maintainable before the C.G.I.T. While disposing of the application, the learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar has relied upon the decision of the Supreme-Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., wherein the Supreme Court has held that while deciding this aspect it is to be kept in mind that the Central Government will be the appropriate Government under the CLRA Act and 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, it is further ruled in the aforesaid case, may be conferred either by a Statute or by virtue of relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power. Where the authority is 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 of 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 circumstances of each case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of hearing, submitted that the I.B.P. company later on merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. might have been established by the Central Government, but as the S.M.S. plant comes under the supervision of the Chief Inspector, Factories and Boilers, the State Government has to be considered as the appropriate Government. Section 2(a)(i) of the Act defines the "appropriate Government". It is an inclusive definition. Section 2(a)(i) of the Act defines the "appropriate Government". It is an inclusive definition. It provides that 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 etc. the central government is the appropriate Government. Section 39 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also where the appropriate Government is the Central Government, by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or by the State Government, or by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, as may be specified in the notification. Clause (b) lays down the delegation of such powers by the State Government, which is' not relevant for the purpose of this case. Learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn attention of the Court to the notification issued by the Ministry of the Labour and Employment on 5.5.2008, wherein in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government had rescinded the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number S.O. 556 (F), dated July 3, 1998, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. The said notification has also been filed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and a perusal of the list appended thereto, it is found that the Indian Oil Corporation has not been listed. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to the effect that the petitioner company is under the control of the Central Government and the Central Government, therefore, is the appropriate government. Such being the facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that no illegality has been committed by the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and, therefore, it requires no interference. It is seen that the case is pending since September, 2010 against an inter locutory order. Such being the facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that no illegality has been committed by the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and, therefore, it requires no interference. It is seen that the case is pending since September, 2010 against an inter locutory order. In the interest of justice, this Court directs for expeditious disposal of the case. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 15.2.2012. Learned Presiding Officer shall make all endeavour dispose of the dispute within six weeks therefrom.