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 said letter had further requested the Labour Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the said plant and to recommend for recognition, the Union having majority of the membership. On receipt of this request, the Labour Commissioner as the Inrplementation and Evaluation Officer authorised the Deputy Labour Commissioner on December 5, 1989 to carry out the process of verification of the membership of the registered trade unions. In pursuance of the same, the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order on December 14, 1989 calling upon the different trade unions to produce the necessary records within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. These orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were challenged by the Ist respondent Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha which is a rival union in the Plant. by way of a Writ Petition being OJC No. 4426 of 1989 in the High Court of Orissa. At the same time, the appellants Union filed a Writ Petition being OJC No. 361 of 1990 seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner to complete the verification of the membership of the Unions and to fix a time-limit to complete the process and recognition and for ancillary reliefs. Both the writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and by its impugned common judgment, the Court was pleased to allow the 1st respondents petition and dismiss the appellants petition. The decision of the Court was based only on the finding that the Implementation and Evaluation Officer was not the "Implementation Machinery" under the Code and the Implementation Officer had no authority to process the application for recognition.

4. The relevant provisions of the Code are as follows :

Section II of the Code deals with "Implementation Machinery" and is headed as such. It begins as follows:-

"2. To implement the Code of Discipline, labour enactments, awards and agreements, a separate machinery has been set up at the Centre and in all States. This machinery comprises:

(a) implementation units in Labour Departments, and

(b) tripartite implementation committees at the Central, State and local levels."

Thereafter it proceeds to deal with Implementation Units and states as follows :-

"(i) Implementation Units :

3. A Central Implementation and Evaluation Division has been set up in the Ministry of Labour and Employment under the charge of a Joint Secretary. In the States also, Implementation Units have been set up under the charge of either a whole-time officer of the Labour Department or of the State Labour Commissioners. According to the recommendations of the Labour Ministers Conference held in January, 1960 the Implementation Officer in each State should, as far as p