Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In the instant case, it is perceivable that the Division Bench has dislodged the finding of the learned single Judge on the basis of the decision of the Constitution Bench in SAIL’s case. One of the reasons the matter was placed before the Constitution Bench was that a two-Judge Bench in Food Corpn. of India v. Transport & Dock Workers Union9 had noticed the conflict of opinion between different Benches including two three-Judge Benches of the Court on the interpretation of the expression “appropriate Government” in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, “CLRA Act”) and in Section 2(a) of the ID Act. The larger Bench had posed three issues for determination and one of them was – “what is the true and correct import of the expression “appropriate Government” as defined in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the CLRA Act?” Adverting to (1999) 7 SCC 59 the said point, the learned Solicitor General had conceded that the State Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the establishment of the Central Government companies in question. The counter stand was that in view of the amended definition of the “appropriate Government” in the CLRA Act with effect from 28.01.1986, the Central Government would be the “appropriate Government”. It was contended by the Food Corporation of India that the “appropriate Government” before and after the notification issued by the Central Government on 28.01.1986, was the Central Government.

12. The Constitution Bench referred to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of CLRA Act, which reads as follows:-

“2. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) ‘appropriate Government’ means—
(i) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is the Central Government, the Central Government;
(ii) in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situate;” The Court also took note of the unamended definition of “appropriate Government” contained in Section 2(1)(a). The said unamended provision reads as under:-
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. Take (1979) 3 SCC 489 (1980) 3 SCC 459 the case of a State Government corporation/company/undertaking set up and owned by the State Government which is an instrumentality or agency of the State Government and is engaged in carrying on an industry, can it be assumed that the industry is carried on under the authority of the Central Government, and in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the industry, can it be said that the appropriate Government is the Central Government? We think the answer must be in the negative. …” And again:-

17. Be it noted, the Court referred to the authorities in Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Model Mills12 and Food Corpn. of India Workers’ Union v. Food Corpn. of India & others13 and proceeded to state what has been stated in Air India Statutory Corpn. & others v. United Labour Union and others14, that is, from the inception of the CLRA Act, the “appropriate Government” was the Central Government and thereafter, opined that:-

“We have held above that in the case of a Central Government company/undertaking, an instrumentality of the Government, carrying on an industry, the criteria to determine whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of the CLRA Act, is that the industry must be carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and not that the company/undertaking is an instrumentality or an agency of the Central Government for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution; such an authority may be conferred either by a statute or by virtue of the relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power and this fact has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. In view of this conclusion, with due respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges on interpretation of the expression “appropriate Government” in Air India case (supra). Point (i) is answered accordingly.” 1984 Supp. SCC 443 (1985) 2 SCC 294 (1997) 9 SCC 377