JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 8.9.1999 by which the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of respondent-Jamil Ahmed along with 50% back wages from 10.2.1999. 2. The respondent no.2 Jamil Ahmed approached the Conciliation Officer, inter alia, alleging that he had been retrenched illegally. A reference was made vide Notification dated 10.2.1993 on the basis of which a case was registered before the Labour Court, Bikaner. Respondent no.2 submitted his claim petition contending that he had worked from 15.11.89 to 16.11.1990 as daily wager and thereafter, by a subsequent order he was retrenched. Respondent no.2 further contended that neither notice of one month was given nor wages for the notice period were paid, as such, the retrenchment was illegal. It was also contended that before making the retrenchment, no seniority list was prepared and retrenchment was made without considering seniority. Resultantly, the retrenchment was made in violation of provisions contained in Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') . 3. The respondent- the petitioner herein, filed a detailed reply giving details that claimant had worked only 1551/2 days and it was averred that initially the claimant worked only upto 24.4.1990 and, thereafter, in July, 1990 and then in August, 1990, the claimant worked in various different divisions of the establishment on different occasions, but did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In the reply it was also submitted that the nature of the work was seasonal work and not continuous. The petitioner himself did not come back to work and there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act. 4. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that respondent no. 2 had worked for more than 240 days and also that he had illegally retrenched without following the provisions of the Act of 1947. Aggrieved against the said decision of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent along with 50% back wages, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Manish Shishodia, counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the Labour Court failed to consider whether the Central State Farm is a Government of India undertaking and doing cultivation for producing quality seeds and as such, could not be considered as an industry. 5. Mr. Manish Shishodia, counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the Labour Court failed to consider whether the Central State Farm is a Government of India undertaking and doing cultivation for producing quality seeds and as such, could not be considered as an industry. It is further averred that respondent no.2-Jamil Ahmed was a daily wager and engaged only for seasonal work and in the circumstances could not be termed as a workman. Moreover, the respondent had not completed 240 days in a calendar year. It has also been argued that the State Government made a reference vide Notification dated 10.2.1993 but before making the reference, the State of Rajasthan did not consider the fact that the Central State Farm is a Government of India undertaking and a reference in the matter related with Central State Farm can be made only by the Central Government being the appropriate Government, and as such, the reference itself is without authority of law. 6. Reply has not been filed to the writ petition nor has any one appeared in the said matter on behalf of the respondent. The matter has been called on several occasions but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the case. 8. At the very out set, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is not competent to make a reference since the petitioner, namely, the State Farm Corporation of India is a Government of India undertaking and, therefore, the State Government was incompetent to make a reference, has merit. The appropriate Government,in the present case, would be the Central Government as the petitioner-Corporation is carrying on its industrial activities under the authority of the Central Government. The appropriate Government,in the present case, would be the Central Government as the petitioner-Corporation is carrying on its industrial activities under the authority of the Central Government. Appropriate Government is defined as under:- "2(a) "appropriate Government" means-- (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning 4[***] any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, 5[***] or by a railway company 6 [or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] 7 [***] or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning 8[a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or 9[the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ] or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948( 46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), 1[***] or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 (31 of 1956), or 2[the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3, or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or 2[the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], 3 [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or 4[5 [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company] a mine, an oil-field] 6[ a Cantonment Board,] or a 7 [major port, any company in which not less than 51 percent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government , or any corporation not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central Public Sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government,]." 9. Since the petitioner was a Central Government undertaking, the State Government was wholly incompetent to make a reference to the Labour Court and the award passed by the Labour Court on such a reference made is wholly without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a similar matter in State Farm Corporation of India & anr. v. Ram Preet & ors, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3047/2000 decided on 8.1.2014 , set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar holding that when a respondent-workman was employed in Government of India undertaking, the appropriate Government in relation to the establishment would be the Central Government and any reference made by the State Government in this regard would be incompetent. 10. Therefore, without going into the merit of the case whether or not the petitioner can be deemed to be an industry or whether the respondent no.2 completed 240 days in a calendar year and keeping the question open, I am of the opinion that the reference made by the State Government was not the appropriate authority and the reference itself was without jurisdiction and consequently the award passed is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 11. Resultantly the above noted writ petition is allowed and the award dated 8.9.1999 is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.Writ Petition allowed. *******