Judgment

DESAI, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. Again the rigmarole of an utterly unsustainable preliminary objection, and valuable time of a decade is wasted in this bizarre exercise frustrating the search for socio-economic justice, making it a distant dream if not an optical illusion.

3. The Central Government as an appropriate Government referred the Industrial dispute between the appellant Goa Sampling Employees Association (Association for short) and the first respondent (employer for short) in each petition under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short) to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay by different orders made in the year 1974 and 1975. Five separate references were made because even though the Association representing employees is common in all references, employer is different; but each raising a common question. When the references came up before the Tribunal. for hearing, it appears that the employer in each case raised a preliminary objection, but what was the earliest preliminary objection eluded us. The Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection whereupon the employer filed some appeal to an authority which is not made clear in the record. It appears the matters were remitted to the Tribunal and thereafter all the five references stood transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I (Tribunal for short).

4. When the references again came up before the Tribunal for hearing, the history repeated. A preliminary objection was raised that the Central Government was not the appropriate Government in relation to the industrial dispute between the Association and the employer and therefore, the Central Government had no power under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the Act to make the reference and accordingly the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Association attempted to repel this contention by urging that the workmen were dock workers within the meaning of the expression in Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 and as they are working in a major port, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government in relation to the industrial dispute between the Association and the workmen and therefore, the reference is valid and the Tribunal should deal with the same on merits according to law. As a second string to the bow, it was contended that in relation to a union territory Central Government is the appropriate Government.

5. It appears that evidence was led before the Tribunal by both the sides. The Tribunal after exhaustively examining the evidence held that the workmen covered by, the reference would be comprehended in the definition of expression Dock Workers as defined in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act and as they were working at Mormugao Port which is a major port, in respect of the industrial dispute raised by them the Central Government would be the appropriate Government. The Tribunal then proceeded to examine whether the reference would be competent on the assumption that the employees are not covered by the expression Dock Workers and held that the work performed by the employees is in a major port and the disputes arise out of the duty performed and work rendered in the major port and therefore, the Central Government would be the appropriate Government to make the necessary reference. The Tribunal then proceeded to consider the alternative submission whether the reference would be competent even if the State Government is the appropriate Government in view of the fact that Goa, Daman and Diu constitute Union Territory as set out in the First Schedule to the Constitution and its administration is carried on by the Administrator appointed by the President under Art 239 of the Constitution. Therefore, also the Central Government is the appropriate Government. After discussing the rival contentions the Tribunal did not record a finding on this contention. The Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection