JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The petitioner National Building Construction Corporation Limited ('employer industry') seeks to challenge the order dated 18th March, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court. The fate of this writ petition depends on the answer to the question whether in relation to the employer industry the Central Government is the 'appropriate Government' within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act') and if yes, the complaint filed by the employee was not maintainable and Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

2.The employee filed the complaint against the employer industry for the alleged unfair labour practices on the part of the employer under Item-9, of Schedule-IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU PULP Act') and it was prayed by the employee that the order dated 8th July, 1992 and the other orders passed by the employer industry be quashed and set aside inflicting punishment of his reduction in rank with retrospective effect from 25-10-1988 and restore him in original post of Superintendent (Accounts) with full benefits of the said post. The employee averred that the employer industry is a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 though its entire share capital is subscribed by Government of India. The other details of the averments are not material for deciding the controversy involved. In the written statement filed by the employer industry preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to try, entertain and dispose of the complaint on the ground that since the Central Government is the appropriate Government under section 2(a) of the I.D. Act for the purposes of the subject matter in dispute and if at all the complaint is held maintainable, it is the National Tribunal which has got the jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the complaint. In support of the said objection the employer industry averred that it was formed under the Ministry of Urban Development, Works, Housing and Supply of the Central Government and the activities carried out by it are directly controlled by and under the authority of Government of India. The Directors are appointed by the President of India and they are the Secretaries to the Government of India. The number of Directors as well as the salary and allowances of the Chairman, Managing Director and the Directors are determined by President of India. The appointment of the General Manager (Finance) is done by the Directors in consultation with the Government of India and the President of India from time to time issues directions in regard to the conduct of business and affairs of the employer industry company. The entire share capital belongs to the Central Government. It was thus submitted that for all practical purposes, it is the Central Government which exercises its control and supervision over the working of the employer industry and, therefore, Central Government is an appropriate Government in respect of the present matter and the present complaint was not maintainable and Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the complaint. On merits also the complaint was contested by the employer industry. The Industrial Court inter alia framed the issues whether the complaint filed was maintainable or not in the law on the ground that Central Government was the appropriate Government and whether the Industrial Court shall have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint under the MRTU PULP Act. The Industrial Court held that complaint was maintainable and under section 2(a) of the I.D. Act, the employer industry cannot be held to be under the control of the Central Government since no notification to that effect has been issued. Accordingly, the Industrial Court held that the complaint was maintainabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document