( 1 ) A neat and the only question of law required to be answered in this intra-Court appeal is as to whether the State Government can claim to be the 'appropriate Government' in respect of the 'cement industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter, the Act) entitling it to exercise powers under Section 10 of the said Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in the said industry.

( 2 ) THE Government of Karnataka in purported exercise of powers under Section 10 (1) of the Act had issued a notification dated august 29, 1986 (Annexure 'f') prohibiting employment of contract labour in respect of certain operations in establishments in the cement industry in the State of Karnataka. The said notification on being challenged by the respondent cement companies has been quashed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the State Government is not the "appropriate Government" within the meaning of Section 10 (1) of the Act and therefore, it (sic) authority to issue the impugned notification.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single Judge the workmen's union has filed the present intra-Court appeal. According to Sri M. C. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing the appellants, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the case of yovan, India Cement Employees' Union v. Management of India Cement Limited, AIR 1994 SC 558 : 1994 (1) SCC 572 : 1994-I- llj-920 and the definition of "appropriate government" under Section 2 (l) (a) of the Act, in the view taken by the learned single Judge is obviously fallacious and therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be set aside thereby upholding the validity of the notification issued by the State Government.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri M. L. N. Reddy. learned counsel appearing for some of the respondent cement companies, while supporting the judgment of the learned single judge, has submitted that the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Sri Yovan (supra) has no application to the issue involved herein since the said decision pertains to the powers to be exercisable by the State Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act alone and cannot be extended beyond what has been said therein so as to embrace even the provisions of the 'act'.

( 5 ) SECTION 10 (1) of the Act, inter alia, provides that the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board, or as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Therefore, a notification under Section 10 (1) can be issued only by an appropriate government as defined under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act which is to the following effect:"section 2 (l) (a)- 'appropriate Government' means- (i) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is the Central Government, the central Government; (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situate. "

( 6 ) FROM the above definition of the "appropriate Government" under the Act, it becomes further clear that if in relation to an establishment, the Central Government is the appropriate Government under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short, I. D. Act), then it is the Central Government which will be the appropriate Government for the purposes of the act as well and only in relation to the remaining establishments, the State Government will be the appropriate Government for the said purposes. In order to ascertain as to which is the appropriate Government for the cement industry under the I. D. Act, one needs to refer to Section 2 (a) (i) of the Act, which defines appropriate Government for its purposes. The definition reads as follows:"section 2 (a) - 'appropriate Government' means (i) in rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document