JUDGMENT:

D.K. JAIN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. In relation to a Multi-State Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State, which government Central or State, is the "appropriate government" for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 (for short "the ID Act"), is the short question for consideration in this appeal?

3. The Appellant-Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") was originally registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. As the Bank had a number of branches outside Maharashtra, subsequently, it got registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. It is in the banking business and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short "the BR Act"). The respondent is a trade union and represents workmen employed in the Bank.

4. Mainly aggrieved by transfer of eleven employees from one place to another, alleging it as an act of victimisation, the respondent filed a complaint against the Bank under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the MRTU & PULP Act"), along with an application for interim relief, before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. While resisting the complaint, the Bank raised certain preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. The plea of the Bank was that as it was engaged in the business of banking and is a Banking Company as defined in Clause (c) of

Section 5 of the BR Act, the appropriate government would be the Central Government and therefore, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, a State Act, were not applicable. The Industrial Court upheld the objection and ordered that the complaint may be returned to the respondent for seeking relief before an appropriate forum.

5. The respondent questioned the validity of the said order by preferring a writ petition in the High Court.

Allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that for the "appropriate Government" to be the Central Government it was necessary that the Bank

must be a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which requirement was missing in the present case. He observed, that even though the respondent may be carrying on banking business, yet it is not a Company as defined under Section 5(d) of the BR Act. Inter-alia, holding that the definition of Banking Company would not include

a Co-operative Bank, which would be regulated under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, the learned Judge set aside the order of the Industrial Court and remanded the matter back to that Court for decision on merits.

6. Being aggrieved, the Bank filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. Inter-alia, observing that Section 2(bb) of the ID Act is an instance of legislation by incorporation and not legislation by reference and, therefore, the amendments made in the BR Act after 1949 cannot be read into the ID Act, Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appropriate Government in the present case would be the State Government. In other words, the Division Bench held that for the purpose of deciding which is the "appropriate government" the expression "Banking Company" will have to be read, as it existed in BR Act of 1949 and that the subsequent amendments made vide Banking Regulation Act, 1965 had to be ignored. Being aggrieved, the Bank is before us by special leave.

7. We have heard Mr. Jamshed Cama, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank and Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent.

8. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 2(bb) of the ID Act creates its own corporate entity, i.e., multi-State Banking Company and reference to the BR Act is for the limited purpose of identifying one kind of banking institution it brings in. Thus, there is no question of such multi-State Banking C