SHAH A. P. , J.

( 1 ) APPEAL admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal is called out and heard.

( 2 ) THIS appeal raises a short but interesting question of law as to which is the "appropriate Government" in respect of the appellant bank, a Multi-State co-operative Bank, carrying on business in more than one State. The facts giving rise to the appeal and which are undisputed are briefly stated as follows :

( 3 ) THE appellant bank was originally registered under the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Subsequently, the Appellant Bank was registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 due to number of branches being outside Maharashtra. The appellant bank is in the banking business and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the B. R. Act" ). The respondent is a trade union and represents the workmen employed in the appellant Bank. The respondent filed Complaint (U. L. P) No. 769 of 2002 under section 28 read with Item 5 of Schedule 11 and Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act" ). An application for interim relief was also made before the Industrial Court at mumbai. The appellant bank in its reply, raised certain preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. It was contended that as the appellant is a bank engaged in the business of banking and is a banking company as defined under Clause (c) of section 5 of the B. R. Act, considering the definition of appropriate Government under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act") the appropriate Government would be the Central Government. Consequently the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 was not applicable. The Industrial Court at Mumbai on holding that the appropriate Government is the Central Government, accordingly ordered that the complaint would not be entertained and returned the same to the respondent for seeking appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. The respondent filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of the Industrial Court which was heard and disposed of by rebello, J. The learned Judge held that the appropriate Government is the state Government and not the Central Government and set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, the issue of applicability of the Bombay industrial Relations Act, 1946 was not pressed before us in view of the decision of this Court in (Co-operative Bank Employees Union v. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others), 1983 (47) F. L. R. 348. The only issue, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether considering the definition contained in section 2 (a) (i) of the ID Act, the appropriate Government in respect of a Multistate co-operative Bank is the State Government.

( 5 ) AT this stage it would be convenient to refer to the provisions of the various Acts relevant for discussion, to find out which is the appropriate government for a Multi-State Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State. Section 5 of the B. R. Act defines the term "banking" and "banking company". Under section 5 (c), the expression "banking company", means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Section 5 (b) defines "banking" to mean the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. "company" under section 5 means any company as defined under section 3 of the Companies act, 1956 and includes a foreign company within the meaning of section 591 of tha