Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 1629
2011(2) ALL MR 753
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPURBENCH)
S. A. BOBDE & P. D. KODE, JJ.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi & Anr.
Vs.
Shri. Duryodhan Hiraman Ingole & Ors.
Letters Patent Appeal No.464 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 1434 of 1997 (D)
Decided on : 23rd November, 2010.
Mr. A. R. ATREY, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. M. V. MOHOKAR, Advocate for Respondents.
Headnote:Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 2-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2-A and 10-Unfair labour practice-Termination of agricultural labourers of NRCC-Jurisdiction of Industrial Court-NRCC under Administrative and Financial Control ICAR, a society set up by Govt. of India-Character, composition and functioning of ICAR has no nexus with State Government-Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes of labourers of NRCC.-The society i.e. ICAR though a separately registered body, is predominantly govern- mental in its composition and, therefore, in its character and that its functioning is subjected to the limitations and directions imposed and issued by the Government of India lead to the conclusion that it is a society which is set up by and functions under the authority of the Government of India.
It is significant to note that considering the matter negatively, there is nothing in the composition, character or functioning the ICAR which suggests any relationship to the State Government. It is neither a State public sector undertaking nor an autonomous body owned or conducted by the State Government vide Section 2(9)(ii). It is, therefore, not possible to take a view that the State Government is appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the ICAR. The ICAR mainly conducts its activities by reason of the fact that it was set up by the Central Government and even today is guided and restricted by the authority of the Central Government, throughout the country.
S. A. BOBDE, J.:- Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against judgment dated 04.05.2009, by which the learned Single Judge has held that the appropriate Government in respect of the appellants is the State Government and, therefore, the Labour Court and Industrial Court have jurisdiction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (For short "MRTU & PULP Act") to entertain the dispute against the appellants. The respondents are agricultural labourers, who were employed for agricultural work in the farm of the appellant nos.2 National Research Centre For Citrus (For short "NRCC"). which body is under the administrative and financial control of appellant no.1 i.e. ICAR. The respondents challenged the termination of their services in a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court. This Act is. admittedly, applicable to the industries in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government. In fact, the appellants, in the complaint alleged that though the NRCC is an undel1aking functioning under the authority of the Central Government, the appropriate Government is the State Government because the office of the NRCC is located at Nagpur. The appellants resisted the complaint on the ground that the appropriate Government in respect of the appellants is the Central Government and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They also contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellants and the respondents since the respondents were engaged by a Contractor i.e. Vidarbha Security and Consultancy Services. Nagpur for doing agricultural work in their farm. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the appellants in relation to the appropriate Government and dismissed the complaints of the respondents. The revision applications filed by the respondents were also dismissed by the Industrial Court.
3. The respondents challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court by filing Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant-ICAR is not an industry carried out by or under the authority of the Central Government and. therefore, the appropriate Government in relation to the ICAR is not the Central Government. Accordingly, the Industrial Court and Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with the complaints under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. Hence, this appeal.
4. Section 2 of the MRTU & PULP Act makes the Act applicable to industries in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Relations Act applies. The provision, to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows :
"2. Extent. commencement and application.
(1) This Act extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.
(2) .........
(3)Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, this Act shall apply to the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Born. XI of 1947), for the time being applies, and also to any industry as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), and the State Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning such industry is the appropriate Government under that Act." This position, when read with Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 make the Act applicable to all individual disputes concerning any industry in relation to which the appropriate Government is the State Government. The Industrial Disputes Act defines appropriate Government as the Central Government in relation to industrial dispute in any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and those specified therein and in relation to all other industries, including those set up by the State Government, the State Government. The said provision
