JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :— The question. for consideration in this appeal by Special Leave is whether the Government of a State can be treated as the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the office of the Regional Provident Fund organisation established by the Central Government for that State under, the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Provident Funds Act).

2. The facts of the case are these : The Government of Karnataka made a reference under Sec. 10 of the Act referring a certain dispute between the Regional Provident Fund organisation established under the Provident Funds Act for the State of Karnataka and its employees to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and the said reference came to be registered as A. I. D. 3 of 1979 on the file of the Tribunal. Before the tribunal the Regional Provident Fund organisation raised among other pleas two preliminary objections to the reference viz. that the activity carried on by the management was not an industry and that the State Government was not the appropriate Government under the Act in relation to the dispute between it and its employees. The Tribunal took up for consideration the two issues arising out of the above two objections first and after bearing the management and the workmen, negatived both the contentions of the management. It held that the business carried on by the Regional Provident Fund organisation was an industry and that the State Government was the appropriate Government under the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the above findings of the Tribunal the management filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka questioning the correctness of the said findings. Before the learned single Judge who heard the writ petition the, management did not, however, press its case as regards the finding that the Provident Fund organisation was an industry. The only contention urged by it was that the State Government being not be appropriate Government under the Act in so far as the dispute was concerned it could not refer the dispute under Sec. 10 of the Act. The learned single Judge accepting the said contention of the management quashed the reference. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the workmen filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and held that the State Government was the appropriate Government for purposes of the dispute in question. The management has filed this appeal after obtaining the leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Division Bench.

4. Under Sec. 10 of the Act, where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified, in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Act, to a Tribunal for adjudication. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the expression appropriate Government as in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by the industries specified in clause (i) of Section 2(a) of the Act, the Central Government and in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government. It may be stated here that the organisation under the Provident Funds Act was not one of the industries specified in Sec. 2(a)(i) of the Act-when the reference was made in this case. The contention of the management is that the industry in question falls under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act as it is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government and hence the Central Government alone can