Allahabad High Court
M/S Grasim Industries Ltd.(Unit Indo ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 September, 2019
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?AFR Court No. - 25 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7515 of 2013 Petitioner :- M/S Grasim Industries Ltd.(Unit Indo Gulf Fertilisers)Thru. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Md. Altaf Mansoor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Gaurav Saxena,Jushi Saxena,Lalla Chauhan,Mohd. Yousuf,Nandita Bharti,Neeraj Kumar Saxena,Rajni Saxena,Rishi Saxena,Seena Saxena Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Altaf Mansoor, Sri Lalla Chauhan for respondent no.3 and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. This petition had initially been filed by Indo Gulf Fertilizers (A Unit of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.). However, since the Unit has been taken over by M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Jagdishpur Industrial Area, Amethi, an amendment application was moved, which was allowed on 30.8.2019 and necessary amendments with regard to the petitioner have already been incorporated in the array of parties, by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow (for short 'CGIT'), wherein it has been declared that the petitioner-Company falls under the purview of "Controlled Industry" as defined in Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the CGIT has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute/petition filed by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Altaf Mansoor that respondent no.3 was working as Deputy Manager in the Stores Department of the petitioner-Company, but his services were terminated on 2.4.2012. A departmental appeal was filed and thereafter respondent no.3 filed an application under Section 2-A of the Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow in May, 2012. On the application of respondent no.3, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a preliminary objection on the ground of jurisdiction for initiation of conciliation proceedings by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow. The proceedings remained pending before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow with regard to the question of jurisdiction. In the meantime, respondent no.3 filed I.D. Case no.66 of 2012 before respondent no.2 on expiry of 45 days from the date of filing of application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow. The respondent no.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 29.8.2012. The petitioner again filed its preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition before the CGIT on 15.3.2013. The affidavits were exchanged in which, respondent no.3 has stated that the petitioner-Company manufactured fertilizer, which is a commodity that is under the direct control of Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Government of India and such manufacturing of fertilizer is controlled under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The availability of raw material, production both in quantity and quality, marketing, movement and fixing of sale price etc. for the petitioner-Company is being controlled by the Central Government and, therefore, the claim petition filed by the workman before the CGIT was maintainable. The respondent no.2 by the impugned order dated 23.8.2013 has decided the question of jurisdiction against the petitioner, therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. It has been submitted by Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor that a perusal of the impugned order would show that objection was indeed raised, but was disregarded by the respondent no.2 only because of reference to the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It has been submitted that the definition of "appropriate Government" is given under Section 2 of the Act, which provides that with regard to 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, the "appropriate Government" would be the Central Government. In the case of the petitioner-Company, however, no such notification has been made by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited vs. Workmen and another (1960) 2 SCR 982 and Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited, Harkhua District Saran, Bihar vs. Workmen represented by Chini Mill Mazdoor Union, Harkhua, District Saran Bihar (1960) 3 SCR 214, that merely because under an Act, the production, supply and sale of a product of a Company is being controlled and regulated by the Central Government, it would not create any presumption that the "appropriate Government" would be the Central Government under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Para-12 of the judgment in the case of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and has read out the same where almost very same argument was raised and rejected. Para-12 of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:
"12. The last contention urged is that the reference is invalid inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not competent to refer the present dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act. The argument is that the Textile Industry has been included at Serial No. 23 in the First Schedule to the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951) and as such the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is urged that the present dispute could have been validly referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal only by the Central Government. Section 2(a)(i) inter alia defines the appropriate Government as meaning, 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, the Central Government. The question which arises is: has the textile industry been specified as controlled industry in this behalf by the Central Government? It is true that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions of Act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled industry; but that would not be enough to attract the application of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. What this latter provision requires is that the Central Government must specify ?in this behalf? that the industry in question is a controlled industry; in other words the specification must be made by the Central Government by reference to, and for the purpose of, the provisions of the Act in order that the Central Government may itself become the appropriate Government qua such industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is conceded by Mr Sastri that no such specification has been made by the Central Government. Indeed, we ought to add in fairness to Mr Sastri that he did not very seriously press this point."
7. Similarly, in Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the decision of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and relied upon the same to hold that the sugar may be a controlled industry under the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, but that would not by its own raise a presumption that the Central Government is the "appropriate Government" for the purpose of Section 2(a)(1) of the Act. Paras-4 and 5 of the said judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:
"4. Two points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellant. In the first place it is urged that the reference was incompetent as sugar was a controlled industry and only the Central Government could have made the reference and not the State Government. Secondly, it is urged that the order of the Tribunal granting an increment of Rs 30 per month to Ramkrishna Prasad was patently perverse and that there was no change in the status or emoluments of Ramkrishna Prasad by the creation of the new post and the employment of Babulal Parekh on it.
5. So far as the question of the competence of the reference is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it. A similar question was raised before this Court in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Workmen [ CA No. 355 of 1958, decided on 12-2-1960] and it was held there on the language of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that before that provision could apply to a controlled industry there must be a notification by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(a)(i) is in these terms?
?Appropriate Government' means 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 banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil-field or a major port, the Central Government.?
The argument is that as sugar is a controlled industry under the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 65 of 1951, the appropriate Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) with reference to the sugar industry is the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the words ?concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government? appearing in Section 2 (a)(i). It is true that sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, but that in our opinion does not conclude the matter. In order that the appropriate government under Section 2(a)(i) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i). This in our opinion is obvious from the words controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government? appearing in Section 2(a)(i). It is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry to attract this provision of Section 2(a)(i); it is further necessary that it should be specified in this behalf, namely for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i), as a controlled industry by the Central Government, before the Central Government can become the appropriate government within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i). We may in this connection refer to Firebricks and Potteries Ltd., etc. v. Firebricks and Potteries Ltd. Workers Union Ltd. [ILR 1955 Mysore 546] where the same view has been taken. We are of opinion that that is the correct meaning of these words appearing in Section 2(a)(i), as already held in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd [ CA No. 355 of 1958, decided on 12-2-1960] . The objection that the reference was not competent therefore fails." (Emphasis Supplied)
8. The phrase "concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf" by the Central Government has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that such an industry, the control of which by the Central Government has been declared to be expedient in public interest under any Central Act. In so far as fertilizer industry is concerned, the same may be controlled industry under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or may be regulated under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, but it has not yet been declared by the Central Government to be a controlled industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the industrial dispute raised shall not automatically be taken up by the CGIT for its consideration.
9. The second limb of argument of Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor is that regarding the same petitioner, several other disputes are pending before the Labour Court as referred by the State Government to it under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He has also pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 by one Special Secretary, Labour Department, Government of U.P. that the petitioner is under the control of the State Government under Section 2(a)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not under the control of the Central Government. The petitioner was never included in the list of Units, which were taken under the control of the Central Government.
10. No doubt, the petitioner-Unit is registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Factories Act, 1948, but the same registration is with the State Government and the State Government is the controlling authority under Section 2(a)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, several industrial disputes relating to the petitioner-Company are pending before the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal of the State Government.
11. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 Sri Lalla Chauhan, on the other hand, has argued on the same lines as have been considered and relied upon by the respondent no.2 in passing the order dated 23.8.2013. He has argued that the definition of "appropriate Government" in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any such controlled industry, as specified in this behalf, by the Central Government, may be read along with Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Under Schedule 1 of the Act of 1951, fertilizers are mentioned at Item no.18. Hence, for an industry, manufacturing fertilizers, the "appropriate Government" is the Central Government. The Fertilizer (Control) Order has also been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The control of the Central Government over the production and supply of fertilizers would make the Fertilizer Industry a controlled industry and, therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of CGIT.
12. Very much the same argument was raised before the Supreme Court in the cases of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited (supra). The Supreme Court has rejected such argument and observed that unless there is a notification of the Central Government with regard to bringing any industry under its control with respect to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same cannot be said to be a controlled industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. The "appropriate Government" would, therefore, not be the Central Government, but only the State Government.
13. Since in this case, the respondent no.3 had approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow initially and while conciliation proceedings remained pending, he also approached the CGIT directly under the enabling provisions of Section 2(A)(2) of the Act of 1947, the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 23.8.2013 while it is being set aside by this Court, liberty is granted to the respondent no.3 to approach, either the State Government or the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal directly by filing a claim petition before it under the enabling provisions of Section 2(A)(2) of the Act. If such a petition is filed, the same shall not be rejected only on the ground of delay and shall be considered on merits, by the appropriate Court.
14. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Sachin