An industrial dispute between the employees engaged in the Head Office of a mining company and the employer is not an industrial dispute concerning a mine under S. 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the Head Office is situated away from the place of mining operations.

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave raises a very short question of a part of S. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. On March 14, 1960, the Government of West Bengal referred for adjudication to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal six items of dispute between four employers and their respective employees. Amongst the employers was the appellant M/s. Serajuddin & Co., P-16, Bentinck Street, Calcutta-1, and the items of dispute covered claims made by the employees for grade and scale, Dearness Allowance, Hose rent, leave and holidays, Provident Fund and Gratuity, and condition of service. It appears that all the workmen employed in the three other industrial concerns filed affidavits before the Tribunal intimating to it that they did not want to proceed with the case because the dispute between them and their respective employers had been settled. That is how the only dispute which was left before the Tribunal for its adjudication was the dispute between the appellant and its workmen.

2. On behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was raised against the validity of the reference itself. It was urged that under S. 2(a), the appropriate Government which could make a valid reference in relation to the present dispute between the parties was the Central Government and not the State Government of West Bengal and so, the reference made by the latter Government was unauthorised and incompetent and the Tribunal had, therefore, no jurisdiction to deal with it. This objection has been overruled by the Tribunal and the case has been set down for hearing on the merits. It is against this finding that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave and so the only point which has been raised by Mr. Sanyal on behalf of the appellant is that the appropriate Government under S. 2(a) is the Central Government and not the State Government of West Bengal.

3. Before dealing with this point, it is necessary to refer to the relevant and material facts in regard to the work which is carried on by the workmen at the appellant s office. The appellant s office at Calcutta generally manages the work of the mines and looks after the sale of its mine products. The mining operations of the appellant are, however, carried on in the State of Orissa under a lease executed in favour of the appellant by the said State. These operations relate to the work of chromite and manganese. The function of the Calcutta Office is merely to exercise general control over the mining operations and look after the sale of the minerals produced in the said mines. It appears that the staff engaged in the Head Office at Calcutta can be transferred to the office in Orissa where the mines are situated. For the purpose of exercising direct supervisory control over the mining operations, the appellant employs staff in the site of the mines. Mr. Sanyal contends that the Head Office of the appellant at Calcutta being an integral part of the mine, any industrial dispute between the said Office and its employees is an industrial dispute concerning a mine under S. 2(a)(i), and so the appropriate Government must be the Central Government and not the State Government.

4. Section 2(a)(i) provides, inter alia, that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, "appropriate Government" means-in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a mine, the Central Government. The question which arises from our decision is whether the present dispute can be said to be an industrial dispute concerning a mine. Mr. Sanyal s argument is that the word "industry" is wide enough to include the Head Office of a mining company, though it may be situated away from the place where the mining operations are actually carried on; and it is in the light of the said definition of the word "industry" contained in S. 2(j) that the words "in relation to a mine" must be construed. An "industrial disput