JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged award dated 20.08.2010, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in Ref. No. 188/2002, titled as Sh. R.C. Rana and others Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. And others 2. Respondents/workmen before this Court raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into the State Government of Himachal Pradesh seeking a determination of the following reference from the learned Labour Court: “ki kya sarav Shri R.C. Rana, Ramesh Chand Sharma, Gurdev Chand, Gagan Singh, Om Parkash Sharma, Gandhi Ram, Jai Singh, R.K. Singh Thakur, Ramesh Kumar, Subhash Chand Sahotra, Bishan Charan, Ravinder Kumar, P.N. P. Nayar, Kishan Chand, Antoni Butt, Pyare Lal thatha Anil Kumar ko Chariman aum Prabandh Nideshak, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sector 33, Karyala Complex, Faridabad, Haryana-121003 dwara Maha Prabandhak/Incharge, Manager Chamera Jal Vidyut Pariyojna Stage1 Kheri, Zila Chamba ke madhyum se maangkarta Sahayak Grade-III ke pad par anya 40 karamcharayon jinehey dinank 15/5/1985 se Sahayek Grade-II ke pad par padonit/niyukt kiya gaya hai se warishit hone ke aadhar par dinanak 1/1/1985 se Sahayak Grade-II ke pad par padonit/niyukt nahi karne ki karyawahi uchit wa nayoyochit hai? Yadi nahi, to uproket mmmangkarta Kaamgar uproket Niyojak paksh se kis poorve waiten, sewa labhon, warishttha, samayasamaya par deya warsh, 1985 ke pashchat padanotiyan aur rahat ke patar hai?” 3. As per the claim petition filed by the respondents/workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”), they were appointed by the Management of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. at Baira Siul Project Surangan and Chukhla Transmission System and Chamera Hydroelectric Project, respectively against the posts of Assistant GradeIII in the pay scale of Rs.260-430/- through a process of internal induction from work charge cadre to regular cadre. As per them, before their induction into regular cadre, they were performing the same duties in the respective Projects as were being performed by the regular cadre Assistant Grade-III. Though they were allowed the benefits of earned leave, HPL, gratuity and EPF, however, the services rendered by them as work charge were not counted towards the minimum qualifying period for promotion against the post of Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Grade-II. Further, as per the workmen, before their transfer to Chamera Hydroelectric Project as Assistant Grade-III, the Project proponent had appointed 40 Assistant GradeIII by way internal induction from amongst the Work Assistants of Baira Siul Project. Further, as per the workmen, before their transfer to Chamera Hydroelectric Project as Assistant Grade-III, the Project proponent had appointed 40 Assistant GradeIII by way internal induction from amongst the Work Assistants of Baira Siul Project. All these 40 persons were junior to the workmen/claimants. Said 40 workmen were appointed as Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. the date of their joining vide order dated 26.05.1995 and were promoted against the post of Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 01.07.1990. As per the claimants, they were rendered junior to the said 40 persons. 4. In this background, in the claim petition, following prayers were made: “(a) To direct the respondents to promote/place the petitioners in the pay scale 330560 (pre revised) as Asstts. Grd.-II w.e.f. 01.01.1985 or prior to the date of joining of these 40 Assistants Grd.-II, whose names and their date of joining are mentioned in Annexure P6. OR To direct the respondents to count the services of the petitioners rendered in same or higher pay scale in work-charged cadre towards the minimum qualifying period for promotion from the post of Asstt. Grd.-III to Asst. Grd.-II. (b) To promote the petitioners in the pay scale of 14502440 w.e.f. 1.1.90 or 1.7.90 and place the applicants in senior position in the Seniority list than these 40 Assistants. (c) To direct the respondents for production of records pertaining to case of petitioners, being custodian of records as employer. (d) Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 5. The same was resisted by the Management. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues” “1. Whether the action of the respondent is not fair, proper and just in appointing/promoting 40 employees vide order dated 15.5.1985 as Assistant Grade-II over and above the seniority of the petitioners, who are entitled to be promoted as Asstt. Grade-II w.e.f. 1.1.1985, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. (1) is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits, the petitioners are entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim of the petitioners is highly belated and deserves dismissal on the ground? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, if so is effect? OPR 5. Whether the claim of the petitioners is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 6. Relief.” 7. OPP 3. Whether the claim of the petitioners is highly belated and deserves dismissal on the ground? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, if so is effect? OPR 5. Whether the claim of the petitioners is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 6. Relief.” 7. Said issues were answered as under by the learned Labour Court: “Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: As per the operative part of the award. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Relief: Allowed as per the operative part of the award.” 8. The reference was disposed of by granting the following reliefs in favour of the claimants: “26. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, the reference is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the same benefits to the petitioners as were granted to the 40 workmen. The petitioners are liable to be placed as Assistant Grade-II in the scale of Rs.330-560 (pre revised) at least from the date the said 40 workmen were appointed as such, though keeping in view their inter se seniority in the Assistant Grade-III, with all consequential benefits. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record room.” 9. While deciding Issues No. 1 and 2, learned Labour Court held that claimants being senior to the 40 workmen even as Assistant Grade-III, were entitled to the same benefits as their juniors were given. It further held that if not senior, then the claimants had to be placed as Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 (prep revised) from the date 40 workmen were granted the said benefits. It further held that as the claimants were senior to the said 40 workmen in their Grade, the action of the respondents in promoting the said 40 workmen as Assistant GradeII over and above them was illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Learned Labour Court held that the claimants were entitled to be placed as Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 revised) at least from the date the said 40 workmen were appointed as such, taking into consideration the seniority of the claimants. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the employer Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 11. Learned Labour Court held that the claimants were entitled to be placed as Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 revised) at least from the date the said 40 workmen were appointed as such, taking into consideration the seniority of the claimants. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the employer Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the award in issue is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as learned Labour Court while passing the impugned award erred in not appreciating that the Reference made to the learned Labour Court was not maintainable in the eyes of law, as for the purpose of the present petitioner-Corporation, it was not the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was “Appropriate Government”, but the “Appropriate Government” was the Central Government. In order to substantiate his contention, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a notification appended with the petition as Annexure P10 (page93), i.e., notification dated 30.05.2007 addressed by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, on the subject “Appropriate Government in respect of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment dt.15.07.2002 in Case of ‘Tajdin Vs. Chief Engineer-Incharge DHEP and another (Special leave to appeal (CRI) No. 557/2002)”, which reads as under: “Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 95(Gen)/2007/C dt. 2.2.2007 addressed to CLC (C), New Delhi regarding ‘Appropriate Government’ in respect of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC Ltd.). The matter has been examined in this Ministry, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajdin Vs. Chief Engineer-Incharge DHEP and another (Special Leave to appeal (CRI) No. 557/2002) and in consultation with Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). It is clarified that the Central Government is the “Appropriate Government” for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC Ltd.), under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary (IR).” 12. I have heard learned counsel for appearing parties and have also gone through the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 13. This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary (IR).” 12. I have heard learned counsel for appearing parties and have also gone through the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 13. A perusal of the impugned award demonstrates that while holding that the Government of Himachal Pradesh was the appropriate authority qua the employer/National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. as far as Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, learned Labour Court relied upon the notification so issued by the Central Government dated 30.08.2001. Learned Labour Court did not refer to the subsequent notification issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 30.05.2007. Not only this, learned Labour Court overlooked the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tajdin Vs. Chief Engineer Incharge, D.H.E.P. & Anr, SLP No. 557/2002 by holding that neither the said judgment laid down any preposition of law nor the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as discussed were brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Labour Court while holding that appropriate Government for the purpose of workmen-Corporation was the State Government Himachal Pradesh, relied upon the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2002 in the following terms: “13. From the perusal of the documents placed on record, it is amply clear that the Central Government in its wisdom has delegated the powers of the appropriate Govt. to the State except in respect of the industrial establishment falling clause 25L (b) of the Act. Not only this the industrial disputes (amendment) Bill 2002, which has been duly published in the gazette of India on 9th May, 2002. Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act has been amended in respect of clause (a) to read thus: “(a) Appropriate Government means, the government of all the States or Union territory, as the case may be in relation to all the industrial dispute concerning any industry or its unit in whose territorial jurisdiction that industry or units is situated.” 14. The bare reading of the Section shows that after the year 2002 it has been mandated that the State Governments shall be appropriate Government for the purposes all the industrial disputes arising in its respective territorial jurisdiction. The amendment discussed hereinabove was published in the gazette as far back as May, 2002. Unfortunately the amendment is not carried in any of the publications thereafter. No bare act carries the said amendment. The amendment discussed hereinabove was published in the gazette as far back as May, 2002. Unfortunately the amendment is not carried in any of the publications thereafter. No bare act carries the said amendment. In fact the said amended provisions came into force after the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union water front Worker and Ors. Case. As such, the contention of the respondents that the State Government is not the appropriate Government to refer the dispute is devoid of any merit and is and unsustainable in the eyes of law. No doubt a subsequent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also referred to by the respondents titled as Tajdeen Vs. Chief Engineer DHEP. The said judgment does not lay any preposition of law and moreover the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, discussed hereinabove was never brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 14. In my considered view, the findings returned by the learned Labour Court while holding that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh was Appropriate Government by relying upon the contents of an Amendment Bill, are totally perverse and not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it stands today, provides for the purpose of the petitioner-Corporation, the Central Government to be the Appropriate Government. Not only this, this fact is further fortified by notification dated 30.05.2007 (supra), wherein the Central Government has clarified that it is the Central Government which is the Appropriate Government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is pertinent to mention that the words used in this communication, which has been issued in the year 2007, are “it is clarified”. In my considered view, because the words contained in this communication are “it is clarified”, therefore, it has to be assumed for all intents and purposes that it was the Central Government which was the Appropriate Government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation even before issuance of communication dated 30.05.2007. This is for the reason that neither the language nor the intent of notification dated 30.05.2007 is suggestive of the fact that the contents thereof were prospective in nature. This is for the reason that neither the language nor the intent of notification dated 30.05.2007 is suggestive of the fact that the contents thereof were prospective in nature. Be that as it may, the statutory provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act itself leave no ambiguity read with notification dated 30.05.2007 that it is the Central Government which is the Appropriate Government for the establishment of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. under the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. Another important aspect of the matter which is needed to be highlighted is this that not only learned Court below passed the award on the basis of the proposed amendment, but then it justified, its placing reliance upon proposed amendment, by stating that the amendment being relied upon was published in the Gazette as far back as in May, 2002, but unfortunately, amendment has not been carried out in any publication thereafter. Learned Labour Court went on to hold that no bare Act carries the said amendment. 16. While returning these reasonings, learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that till the time the Amendment Bill of 2002 became a law, it was a Bill for all intents and purposes and it could have had substituted the existing statutory provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Acts This very important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Labour Court, which has rendered the award passed by it as void ab initio. Therefore, in my considered view, as it was not the State Government which was “Appropriate Government” for the establishment of NHPCL under the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that the Reference which made to it by the Appropriate Government, i.e., the State of Himachal Pradesh was no Reference in the eyes of law and findings to the contrary recorded by the learned Labour Court are completely unsustainable in law and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. 17. In view of above, this writ petition succeeds. As the Reference made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh was not a valid Reference, the award dated 20.08.2010 passed upon the same by the learned Labour Court is void abinitio and is hence quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of, so also miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.