Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 April, 2026
1
30.04.2026
Item No.2
Court No. 30
MKP
WPA 8853 of 2026
Steel Authority Of India Limited
-vs-
Union Of India And Ors.
Mr. Soumya Mazumder, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Kaustav Banerjee
Ms. Ria Kundu
... for the Petitioner
Mr. Samidhya Dutta
Mr. Antarik Dawn
...............For the Respondent no.6
Mr. Sidhant Chowdhury (V/C) ...........for (Not given) Mr. Md. Idrish Mr. Nayan Rakshit Mr. Nilay Rakshit ..........for Private Respondent
1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to recall the order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Respondent no.3, being the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol and as the authority under the minimum Wages Act, 1948.
2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soumya Majumder has brought the notice of this Court to the impugned order wherein, it appears that the authority concerned has stated that Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has ceased to be in operation 1 2 with the implementation of the Code on Wages, 2019, and held as follows:-
"Is Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) an undertaking of the government of India? The answer is Yes. SAIL is a Maharatna, Schedule 'A' Company under the administrative control of Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India. At present government of India holds 65% of its equity shareholding. SAIL may or may not be a corporation established by a central Act, yet it is still carried on under the authority of the central government/Ministry of Steel. Accordingly, Central Government is the Appropriate Government in relation any Scheduled Employments of SAIL under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Under section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 it is the responsibility of the Appropriate Government to fix the rate of wages. Hence, Central rate of Minimum Wages is applicable in SAIL. Not all employments in SAIL are scheduled employment and in respect of non- scheduled employment Minimum Wages Act 1948 itself is not applicable. However, as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 2 3 published in Gazette of India vide Notification No.S.O.192 (E) dated 19.01.2017 Warehouse is a Scheduled Employment under Loading unloading Category. Thus, labourers employed in SAIL Warehouses are covered under Central Minimum Wages rate"
3. Mr. Majumder relies upon the following judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Versus National Union Waterfront Workers And Ors, dated 30.08.2001, (2001) 7 SCC, wherein the Court held:-
"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 the Central Government though they may be "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. We have held above that being the instrumentality or agency of 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 3 4 Government. 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 4 5 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."
"127. The order of the High Court at Calcutta, under challenge, insofar as it relates to holding that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of the CLRA Act, is confirmed but the direction that the contract labour shall be absorbed and treated on a par with the regular employees of the appellants, is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part."
4. The Court while deciding the issue laid down the following test to determine the criteria as to decide, "The Appropriate Government" relating to an establishment:-
"................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. All the Central Government companies involved in the instant cases are not and cannot be equated to the Central 5 6 Government though they may be "State"
within the meaning of Article 12...................
[Paras 38, 39, and 46] "Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government.
[Paras 125(1)(a)]"
"After 28-1-1986, in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to 6 7 the said question is to be found in Section 2(a) of the ID Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (iii) the industry is a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government.
[Paras 125(1)(b)]"
5. In Nashik Workers Union Versus Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 224, decided on 26.02.2016, the Supreme Court held:-
"32. In the case at hand, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision in HAL 24 can be regarded as a binding precedent. As is noticeable, HAL 24 has not taken note of the earlier decision in HAL 16. It has been clearly held in HAL 16 that regard being had to the dictionary clause of the ID Act for the purpose of 7 8 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., it is the State Government which has to make the reference. In HAL 24 the Court has referred to the decision in SAIL case³ and opined that it is undisputed that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an undertaking of the Central Government and it is the Central Government which exercises full control over the same and, therefore, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. This analysis runs counter to HAL 16 and as well the ratio of the decision in SAIL case³. On the contrary there is no discussion either on the facts or the law. It has been opined that the facts are "undisputed".
33. In HAL 16, the three-Judge Bench had referred to the decision in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union. As has been held in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union's, the authority in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence. The authority in SAIL case³, as the conclusion would show, covers two situations the unamended provision and the amended provision. It does not disturb the principles stated in HAL 16. Thus, two aspects, 8 9 first. HAL 24 does not take note of HAL 16 and second, it proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts which are not stated. It is to be noted that there is nothing in the order in HAL 24 to suggest that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an agent of the Central Government.
34. In our considered opinion, as HAL 24 has not noticed HAL 16 which has been approved in SAIL case³, it cannot be considered as a binding precedent Therefore, we hold that HAL1 still holds good and lays down the correct law and we are bound by it as its foundation flows from Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union which has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence as has been stated in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union 18. Be it stated, that divergence really does not affect the approval. We have no hesitation in our mind that HAL 24 cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. Ergo, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court has not applied the ratio in SAIL case³ correctly and, therefore, the entire analysis has to be held to be fallacious.
9 10
35. The controversy does not end there. It is perceptible that the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the case and dismissed LPA No. 144 of 2002 on the ground that it did not survive after dismissal of LPA No. 84 of 2006. As we have set aside the order passed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Nashik Workers Union' and opined that the "appropriate Government" in relation to the respondent Company is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits."
6. Thus, it prima facie appears from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Majumder, that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of CLRA Act. (National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.(Supra))
7. Considering the judgments relied upon, this Court finds that the petitioner has made out an arguable case in the present writ application and as such the writ application is to be heard on merit.
8. Pending hearing of the writ application , the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the 10 11 Respondent no.3 being Regional Labour Commissioner Central and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 be stayed till the 20th of July, 2026, or until furthers, whichever is earlier.
9. Let the matter listed on 12.05.2026, for further hearing.
10. Parties to file their respective written notes on the next date.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) 11