JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. In all these writ petitions common questions are involved and as such the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The order dtd.16.7.2013 passed in I.D. Case No.35 of 2012 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar is under challenge whereby and where under the objection raised by the Management regarding maintainability of the dispute on account of jurisdiction in making reference has been rejected. 3. The case of the Management in short is that it is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its unit at Hirakud, P.O.-Hirakud, District-Sambalpur, Odisha and registered office at Mumbai, the petitioner is a part of the Aditya Birla Group, one of the largest industrial groups in India and is one of the largest Aluminum producers in the country, having integrated facilities from mining of Bauxite to finished products. The local management staff, particularly, administrative and supervisory staff of non-workman category of employees of the petitioner in Hirakud Complex at Hirakud formed an association in the name of Hirakud Staff Association and subsequently got the said Association registered under the Trade Unions Act. The categories of the employees who are members of the said Association are appointed/engaged by entering into a service contract/contract of employment subsequent to personal interview conducted by the concerned Human Resource officials of the petitioner. The said Association placed charter of demands consisting of various claims for and on behalf of the members of the said Association, ignoring petitioner’s uniform administrative policy and the norms and conditions of the service contract. The petitioner has raised objection to the said charter of demand of the Association in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Association stating that the said category of employees are administrative and supervisory staff and are not workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence the proceeding is liable to be closed/dropped as the forum holding conciliation proceeding is not meant for the said category of employees not entering into other aspect of the demands on merit which situation could never arise in respect of such category of employees. The conciliation proceeding failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted its failure report to the Labour Department, Government of Odisha for reference. The conciliation proceeding failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted its failure report to the Labour Department, Government of Odisha for reference. Despite the objection, the State Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal at Bhubaneswar by framing 13 separate disputes based upon the charter of demands for adjudication vide order dtd.10.5.2012 in exercise of power conferred U/s.10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. All the 13 separate disputes have been registered as 13 separate I.D. Cases serially numbered as I.D. Case Nos.23 to 35 of 2012. The 13 referred demands are pertaining to basic pay and scale, VDA, HRA, vehicle loan, house building loan, grain store, leave, bonus, etc. During pendency of the 13 I.D. Cases the Hirakud Staff Association filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.20243 of 2012 before this court to declare the references made by the Government of Odisha under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar as incomplete and to issue direction to the State Government to incorporate a further question in the order of reference that “whether the unfair labour practices adopted by M/s.Hindalco Industries Limited under the Industrial Disputes Act is legal and/or justified?” However, this Court had dismissed the writ petition vide order dtd.10.01.2013. According to the petitioner the Central Government is the appropriate Government and the Central Government is only competent to deal with industrial disputes relating to the employees working in the mines and not the State Government, but without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the dispute of the workers working in the mines has also been referred by the State Government, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the jurisdiction, has made an objection regarding maintainability of the aforesaid I.D. case including the rest 12 cases on the issue of appropriate Government with a prayer to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue without going into details of the proceedings. 3. The Association filed its reply to the said application, stating therein that such application has been filed belatedly and the petitioner is not a Government Company, the appropriate Government is the State Government. 4. 3. The Association filed its reply to the said application, stating therein that such application has been filed belatedly and the petitioner is not a Government Company, the appropriate Government is the State Government. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties has passed order on 16.07.2013 rejecting the plea of the petitioner which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the State Government is not the appropriate Government to make reference with respect to service conditions of employees working in mines, rather the Central Government is the appropriate Government concerning the workers working in the mines. But without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the order has been passed rejecting the plea of the petitioner. 5. The opposite party no.3 has appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that it is a registered trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1986 by the State Authorities, there were 13 references made by the appropriate Government, i.e. the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with respect to various service conditions of its members, 13 in number for its adjudication. It has been stated that the petitioner – Management filed its written submission before the Tribunal in all the cases on merit without questioning the reference and without questioning the authority of the State Government in this regard that too when 3 witnesses have led their evidences, then this application has been filed which is nothing but only to linger the matter and as such it has been stated that the writ petition may not be entertained. It has further been stated that the petitioner company is a 100% owned private company, the OST and CST numbers of Smelter, Power and Captive Mines of the Company are same, the uniform of the employees of Power and Captive Mines are same and other similarities have been stated at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit demonstrating the fact that there is no difference in between the mining staff and the other workers working under the Management. It has been stated that the contention raised by the Management that in view of the word Mine having been incorporated U/s.2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act, 1947 the dispute related to the workers working in the mines has to be referred by the Central Government being the appropriate government is not said to be correct argument for the reason that however the word “Mine” has been defined U/s.2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and as per clause-(viii) of Section 2(j) all works such as stores situated within the precincts of a Mine and under the same Management and used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same Management, comes under the definition of “Mine”. Similarly, Section 2(k) of the Mines Act, 1952 defines “Office of the Mine”, an office at the surface of the mine concerned. The “workman” has been defined U/s.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. However, there is no such definition under the Mines Act, 1952 defining “workman” rather Section 2(h) of the Mines Act, 1952 prescribes that a person is said to be employed in a mine who works as the Manager or who works under the appointment by the owner, agent of Manager of Mine or of the knowledge of the Manager. By stating these things it has been stated that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The Management has questioned the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dtd.16.7.2013 holding therein that the State Government is the appropriate Government to refer the dispute. Before going through the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal it would be relevant to discuss the statutory provisions which have got bearing in this case along with authoritative pronouncements in this regard. Reference in this regard may be made to the statutory provision as contained in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows:- Section 2 of the I.D. Act, 1947 reads as follows: “2. Reference in this regard may be made to the statutory provision as contained in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows:- Section 2 of the I.D. Act, 1947 reads as follows: “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-- (a) "appropriate Government" means— (i) 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 [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948 ), or 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), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [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 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 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], [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)] or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company,] a mine, an oil field, [a Cantonment Board,] or a major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. 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, and] (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment.] An analysis of this his provision shows that the Central Government will be the appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute concerning (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company or (ii) any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or (iii) the enumerated industries (which form part of the definition quoted above and need not be reproduced here). What is evident is that the phrase "any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government" is a common factor in both the un-amended as well as the amended definition. The relevant meaning of the word "authority" as per the definition in Concise Oxford Dictionary is delegated power. In Black's law Dictionary the meanings of the word "authority" are permission; right to exercise powers - often synonymous with power. The power delegated by a principal to his agent. The lawful delegation of power by one person to another, Power of agent to affect legal relations of principal by acts done in accordance with principal's manifestations of consent to agent. 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. 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. The authoritative pronouncement made in this regard is the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 765 wherein at paragraph 5 it has been held by Hon’ble Apex court as follows:- “5….The question whether a corporation is an agent of the State must depend on the facts of each case. Where a statute setting up a corporation so provides, such a corporation can easily be identified as the agent of the State as in Graham V. Public Works Commissioners, reported in (1901) 2 KB 781 (DC) where Phillimore, J. Said that the Crown does in certain cases establish with the consent of Parliament certain officials or bodies who are to be treated as agents of the Crown even though they have the power of contracting as principals. In the absence of a statutory provision, however, a commercial corporation acting on its own behalf, even though it is controlled wholly or partially by a government department, will be ordinarily presumed not to be a servant or agent of the State. The fact that a Minister appoints the members or directors of a corporation and he is entitled to call for information, to give directions which are binding on the directors and to supervise over the conduct of the business of the corporation does not render the corporation an agent of the Government. In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court looked into the definition of employer as given in Section 2(g) of the I.D. Act. As this section provides, an employer under clause (g) means, an employer in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or the State Government, the authority prescribed in that behalf, or where no such authority is prescribed, the Head of the Department. No such authority was prescribed in regard to the business carried on by the respondent company. No such authority was prescribed in regard to the business carried on by the respondent company. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the definition of the “employer” under the Industrial Disputes Act on the contrary suggests that an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Government means either the industry carried on directly by a department of the Government such as the Posts and Telegraphs or Railways, or one carried on by such department through the instrumentality of an agent. All these facts led the Hon’ble Apex Court to hold that Heavy Engineering Corporation could not be said to be an “industry” carried on under the authority of the Central Government. 7. In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vrs. Workmen, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 679 (herein after referred to as HAL-I) the dispute between the Management of Barrackpore Branch of the appellant Government Company situated in West Bengal and its employees. The appellant has challenged the award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and one of the challenges was to the competence of the Government of West Bengal to make the reference of the industrial dispute. It was contended that the Barrackpore Branch was under the direct control of the Bangalore division of the company and since it was a government company constituted under section 617 of the Companies Act, the reference ought to have been made either by the Central Government or by the Government of Karnataka, but the Hon’ble Apex Court negatived the contention by following the judgment rendered in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) and holding at paragraph 4 as follows:- “4….The workers were receiving their pay packages at Barrackpore and were under the control of the officers of the company stationed there. If there was any disturbance of industrial peace at Barrackpore where a considerable number of workmen were working the appropriate Government concerned in the maintenance of the industrial peace was the West Bengal Government. The grievances of the workmen of Barrackpore were their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute in question arose there. If there was any disturbance of industrial peace at Barrackpore where a considerable number of workmen were working the appropriate Government concerned in the maintenance of the industrial peace was the West Bengal Government. The grievances of the workmen of Barrackpore were their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute in question arose there. The reference, therefore, for adjudication of such a dispute by the Governor of West Bengal was good and valid.” The Hon’ble Apex Court thus has held that it may be assumed that the Barrackpore Branch was under the control of the Bangalore division of the company, yet it was a separate branch engaged in an industry of repairs of air crafts or the like at Barrackpore. For the purpose of the Act and on the facts of this case the Barrackpore branch was an industry carried on by the company as a separate unit. The workers were receiving their pay packages at Barrackpore and were under the control of the officers of the company stationed there. If there was any disturbance of industrial peace at Barrackpore where a considerable number of workmen were working the appropriate Government concerned in the maintenance of the industrial peace was the West Bengal Government. The grievances of the workmen of Barrackpore were their own and the cause of action in relation to the industrial dispute in question arose there. The reference therefore, for adjudication of such a dispute by the Governor of West Bengal was good and valid. 8. In the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vrs. Model Mills, reported in 1984 Supp. SCC 443 a reference of the demands of the employees for payment of bonus was challenged on the ground that an authorized controller under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. 1951 had been appointed in respect of industrial undertaking and since the undertaking was being run by an authorized controller under the authority of a department of the Central Government, the reference under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was not competent. 1951 had been appointed in respect of industrial undertaking and since the undertaking was being run by an authorized controller under the authority of a department of the Central Government, the reference under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was not competent. A Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of three Hon’ble Judges once again referred to the interpretation of the expression “under the authority of” rendered in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union’s case (supra) and reached to the conclusion at paragraph 17 which is being reproduced herein below:- “17………The fact that the authorized controller is appointed by the Central Government and that he has to work subject to the directions of the Central Government does not render the industrial undertaking an agent of the Central Government and therefore, could not be said to be an establishment engaged in an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) was followed by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Workers’ Union Vrs. Food Corporation of India, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 294 . Therein Hon’ble Apex Court was concerned with the writ petition filed by the employees seeking regularization of their services under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In that matter in spite of the fact that FCI is a specified industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the definition of “appropriate Government” under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) and Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) held that for the regional offices and warehouses which were situated in various States, the State Governments were the “appropriate Governments” and not the Central Government. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court by its Constitution Bench dealing with the same situation in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court by its Constitution Bench dealing with the same situation in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 dealing with the definition of “appropriate Government” within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act has approved the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra), HAL-I (supra), Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and Food Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) and held at paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 as follows:- “37. We wish to clear the air that the principle, while discharging public functions and duties the government companies/corporations/societies which are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government must be subjected to the same limitations in the field of public law – constitutional or administrative law – as the Government itself, does not lead to the inference that they become agents of the Centre/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. “38. From the above discussion, it follows that the fact of being an instrumentality of a Central/State Government or being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution cannot be determinative of the question as to whether an industry carried on by a company/corporation or an instrumentality of the Government is by or under the authority of the Central Government for the purpose of or within the meaning of the definition of appropriate Government‘ in the CLRA Act. xxxx Further, the definition of establishment‘ in the CLRA Act takes in its fold purely private undertakings which cannot be brought within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In such a case, how is appropriate Government‘ determined for the purposes of the CLRA Act or the Industrial Disputes Act? In our view, the test which is determinative is: whether the industry carried on by the establishment in question is under the authority of the Central Government. Obviously, there cannot be one test for one part of the definition of establishment and another test for another part. In our view, the test which is determinative is: whether the industry carried on by the establishment in question is under the authority of the Central Government. Obviously, there cannot be one test for one part of the definition of establishment and another test for another part. Thus, it is clear that the criterion is whether an undertaking/instrumentality of the Government is carrying on an industry under the authority of the Central Government and not whether the undertaking is an instrumentality or agency of the Government for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution, be it of the Central Government or the State Government. “39. ….. To Hold that the Central Government is the appropriate Government‘ in relation to an 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 ID 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 the 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 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.” In paragraph 41 of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the judgment in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union case and has approved the proposition laid down therein. This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstances of each case.” In paragraph 41 of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the judgment in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union case and has approved the proposition laid down therein. In paragraph 42 the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the judgment in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and noted that the judgment in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union case was followed in Hindustan Aeronautics and taken note of the factor that if there was any disturbance of industrial peace in Barrackpore, the “appropriate Government” concerned for the maintenance of internal peace was the West Bengal Government. In paragraph 43 the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the judgment in Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and held that the undertaking could not be held to be carried on under the authority of the Central Government. At paragraph 44 the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case while examining the ratio laid down in the case of Food Corporation of India held that the State Government was the appropriate Government pertaining to the regional offices and warehouses of FCI under the Contract Labour (Regulation) and Abolition) Act. 10. Thereafter another judgment has come in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Another Vrs. Hindustan Aeronautical Canteen Kamgar Sangh and others, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 51 (herein after referred to as HAL-II) wherein it is held that the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. being an undertaking of the Central Government and the Central Government exercises full control over the same and as such the Central Government has been held to be the ‘appropriate Government’, but the judgment rendered in the HAL-II case has been taken note by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vrs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.9332-9333 of 2010 and the Hon’ble Apex Court after taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the cases of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra), HAL-I (supra), Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra), Food Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) and Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) has been pleased to hold that the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HAL-II is contrary to the ratio laid down in the cases of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra), HAL-I (supra), Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra), Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) and Food Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) and the ratio laid down in those cases since been examined by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such it has been held in the Nasik Workers Union Case that the ration laid down regarding appropriate Government in HAL-I will be said to be the correct law since been passed upon the ratio laid down in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. 11. Thereafter another judgment dealing with the same issue came in the case of Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vrs. Tata Memorial Centre and Another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 480 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in that case after taking into consideration all the judgments as discussed herein above has given finding regarding tests for determining the industry as to whether it is carried on under the authority of the State Government or the Central Government and after taking note of all the previous judgments except the judgment rendered in the case of HAL-II has been pleased to hold that the industry or undertaking has to be carried under the authority of the Central Government or the State Government, that authority may be conferred either by a statute or by virtue of a relationship of principal and agent, or delegation of power. When it comes to conferring power by statute, there is not much difficulty. However, where it is not so, and whether the undertaking is functioning under authority is a question of fact. It is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. When it comes to conferring power by statute, there is not much difficulty. However, where it is not so, and whether the undertaking is functioning under authority is a question of fact. It is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as can be seen from the submission of the parties, the determination as to which Government is the “appropriate Government” for the petitioner – Management will depend upon the issue, i.e. how the property of the Management vested and its control and Management. Learned senior counsel representing the Management has not disputed this fact that the Management is a private limited company and as such the company in its entirety is not coming under the ambit of Section 2(a)(i) as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred herein above, for avoiding repetition, the same are not discussed again. The further admitted position in this case is that since the management is a private limited company situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Odisha, as such the State of Odisha will be said to be the appropriate Government for making references before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute. But here in this case learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has raised a dispute regarding the authority of the State Government being an appropriate Government for the reason that the members of the Union consists of two categories of workers, the first group belongs to the ministerial cadre and to that effect there is no dispute by the Management that the appropriate Government is the State Government, but so far as other group, which according to the Management, related to the mining work, hence the State Government cannot be said to be the appropriate Government in view of the specific insertion of the word mine under the provision of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raising question regarding the authority of the State Government in making the references in question, this writ petition has been filed. 13. 13. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have found that the Hindalco Staff Association had approached this Court on earlier occasion for its recognition in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6352 of 2010 which was dismissed relating to charter of demands and also the issue regarding grant of recognition to the seven office bearers as protected workmen and directed to proceed further in the matter taking necessary legal action in accordance with the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 as expeditiously as possible and pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Labour Commissioner has passed the order which has not been challenged in any forum, hence the same has attained its finality and as such the same was notified on 5th December 2013 which goes to suggest that the Management has never disputed the identity of the Association and it is also admitted position that the Association is the only Union representing the case of the workman. It also transpires from the pleading that the Association has raised demand by way of 21st Charter demand before the Management and when it was not redressed the same has been placed before the Conciliating Officer who has found 13 demands to be adjudicated, but the conciliation having been failed, a failure report has been submitted U/s.12(4) of the I.D. Act and the appropriate Government, i.e. the State of Odisha in exercise of power conferred U/s.12(5) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has made the following references:- (i) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association for revised Basic Pay of the Grade 28, 29, 30 in the manner Rs.16,500/- - 450 – 20,000 – 600 – 22,800; Rs.17,900/- - 500 – 22,200 – 700 – 25,900; Rs.19,700/- - 550 – 24,200 – 800 – 25,200/- is legal and/or justified? If so, what should be the details? (ii) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association for payment of VDA as per the All India Consumer Price Index base is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? If so, what should be the details? (ii) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association for payment of VDA as per the All India Consumer Price Index base is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (iii) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association for service weight age to be given as increment less than 5 years – 02 increment, 05 years to 10 years service – 04 increment, 10 years to 15 years service – 06 increment, 15 years to 20 years service – 08 increment, 20 years and above – 10 increment is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (iv) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association is legal and/or justified regarding the retirement age should be 60 years as provided to Grade 31 and above category employees of the Industry? If so what should be the details? (v) Whether the demand of the Hindalco Staff Association for the monthly incentive bonus and the annual productivity bonus @ 30% of annual gross earning as annual productivity bonus is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (vi) Whether the demand of the Union for payment of Rs.4,000/- and two increment for expanded capacity is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (vii) Whether the demand of the Union for the 15 days Casual Leave per year and encashment of Casual Leave at the end of the year is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (viii) Whether the demand of the House Building Loan for Fifteen lakhs to all the permanent staff of the employees of the Hindalco Industries is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (ix) Whether the demand of the House Rent Allowance to the employees excluding those who were provided with the company accommodation of 40% of the salary subject to minimum of Rs.5,000/- per month is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (x) Whether the demand of the Union regarding increase of the Scholarship amount of Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- per month for the meritorious children of the employees is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (xi) Whether the demand of the service to the dependents may be within premises or outside premises is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? If so what should be the details? (xi) Whether the demand of the service to the dependents may be within premises or outside premises is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? (xii) Whether the demand of providing grain store facilities to all the employees is legal and/or justified? If so what should be the details? It is evident from the reference which have been raised by the Hindalco Staff Association for revised basic pay, payment of VDA, increment, age of superannuation, incentive bonus and the annual productivity bonus @ 30% of annual gross earning, to provide benefit of house building loan, house rent allowance and increase of scholarship amount for all its members. Thus it is evident that the dispute has been raised by the Association and the same has been referred by the appropriate Government, i.e. the State of Odisha. It further transpires from the pleading that the Management has never raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer that there are two categories of workers, not challenged the reference before any forum, rather submitted to the jurisdiction of the Conciliating Officer without making objection in this regard and before the Industrial Tribunal by filing written statement not saying anything about the same and allowed the evidence to proceed, but in the midst of evidence the application has been filed challenging the authority of the Industrial Tribunal to proceed further in view of the fact that the reference itself is bad being not referred by the appropriate Government. According to the Management since there are two groups of workers, one under the Ministerial Cadre and other under the Mine, as such the Industrial Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate for the reason that there is no provision in the I.D. Act to segregate the dispute, hence appropriate remedy available to the workmen is to approach competent court of Civil Jurisdiction. We, after going through the pleadings made in the affidavits filed by the parties, have found that the workmen’s stand is that there are some workers working in the mines work apart from the ministerial work and as such it cannot be said that few workers are exclusively worked in the mining operation. We, after going through the pleadings made in the affidavits filed by the parties, have found that the workmen’s stand is that there are some workers working in the mines work apart from the ministerial work and as such it cannot be said that few workers are exclusively worked in the mining operation. It has specifically been pleaded regarding the nature of work of the ministerial workers and the workers working in the mines in the counter affidavit and from its perusal it is evident that it is a mixed question of law and fact. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel representing the Management is that Industrial dispute is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of this case, but we cannot accept this argument for the reason that the Management is not disputing the fact that the workers are coming within the definition of “workman” as per the definition provided under the I.D. Act, hence the dispute raised by the workmen in this case cannot be adjudicated by the Civil Court in view of the specific provision made in this regard in the shape of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the contention that the dispute cannot be segregated on the ground of two groups of workers, but this question cannot be decided by the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since this aspect of the matter has been disputed by the workmen seriously and further this point has never been raised by the Management either before the Conciliating Officer or before the Tribunal or even not challenged the reference before any forum. There is no dispute about the fact that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceeding since it pertains to legal question, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, which we have gathered from the pleadings of the parties, it is not only a legal question, rather it is a mixed question of law and facts and as such the same is to be adjudicated by allowing the parties to lead evidence in this regard. There is no dispute about the fact that the management is a private limited company situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Odisha and as such the appropriate Government is the State Government of Odisha to make reference. There is no dispute about the fact that the management is a private limited company situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Odisha and as such the appropriate Government is the State Government of Odisha to make reference. The same is not in dispute and also have not been disputed by the Management, but so far as the workmen working in the mines, the stand of Union is that they are working in Mines on ancillary work but also discharging Ministerial work and as such the same can only be decided by the Tribunal, but fact remains that in case of disturbance of industrial peace the same will certainly occur within the State of Odisha and as such taking aid of the judgments rendered in the cases of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra), HAL-I (supra), Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and Food Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) the appropriate Government would be the State Government, more particularly, the judgment rendered in the case of HAL-I, in that case the Hon’ble Apex Court after taking into consideration that the industrial disturbances caused within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal and as such the West Bengal Government will be the appropriate Government, following this ratio we are also not in hesitation to hold that the appropriate Government to refer the dispute with relation to the claim of the workers of the Management is the State Government of Odisha. In view of the entirety of facts and legal position as enumerated herein above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal since the Tribunal after taking into consideration the factual aspect has given finding holding therein that the State Government is the appropriate Government. Accordingly the writ petitions lack merit, hence dismissed.