JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:— Leave granted.

2. The only question which falls for consideration in the present case is - what is the meaning of "Implementation Machinery" within the meaning of the Code of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as the "Code) ratified by all Central Employers and Workers Organisations at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May 1958 and which came into force from June 1, 1958. The question assumes importance in the present case because the High Court by the impugned decision has held that since the appellant-Union had addressed its application for recognition not to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implementation Officer, the same was not properly made and the Implementation Officer had no authority to initiate the process of recognition.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellant Rourkela Sramik Sangh had addressed a letter on October 9, 1989 to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner-Orissa, Cuttack intimating him that as per the Code it had called upon the Rourkefa Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent in the Plant, but that the Plant had not replied to the same. The appellant in the sai