A controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is not necessarily an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case is Messrs. Bharat Glass Works (Private) Ltd. It carries on business as manufacturers and producers of glass and ceramics, having its factory at Belkhoris in the 24 parganas. On or about the 11th December, 1954 the respondent No. 4, the Bharat Glass Workers' Union, claiming to represent the workers of the petitioner-company, put forward a charter of demand. The demands were pretty exhaustive, but it is unnecessary for our purposes to deal with the nature thereof. The Govt, of West Bengal, by an order dated the 17th June, 1955 referred certain disputes between the petitioner-company and its workers, for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A copy of the Order of Reference is annexed to the petition and marked as Exhibit B. The petitioner-company appeared before the Tribunal, respondent No. 3 in this case, and took a preliminary objection to jurisdiction. The objection was that as the petitioner was carrying on a controlled and scheduled industry, an Order of Reference for adjudication could only be made by the Central Government, and that the order of reference for adjudication made by the Government of West Bengal was illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and consequently the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to take seisin of the matter. On the 6th of July, 1956 the Tribunal decided the preliminary objection and rejected it. On the 25th July, 1956 this Rule was issued call-Ing upon the respondents to show cause why this order of Reference should not be set aside and why the third. respondent should not be prohibited from dealing with the Reference and adjudicating upon the same. The short point before me is as to whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, an order of reference for adjudication should have been made by the Central Government or was it rightly made by the Government of West Bengal. The matter arises in the following manner. The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, being Act LXV of 1951, came into operation on the 31st October, 1951. It is an Act to provide, for the development and regulation of certain industries, and is a central Act. Under Section 2, it is declared that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule, It appears that Item No. 37 in the First Schedule annexed to the Act is "glass and Ceramics". It is, therefore, clear that the business carried on by the petitioner is an industry, controlled under the provisions of this Act. Mr. Sen Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the various provisions of the Act to show that the Union of India exercised, or had the right to exercise, a tremendous power of control over scheduled industries. That this is so cannot be denied. The Act envisages the establishment and constitution of a Central Advisory Council, and Development Councils. Chapter III deals with regulations of scheduled industries. The owner of every existing 'industrial undertaking', that is to say, undertakings to which the provisions of the Act applies has to be registered. Then there are provisions for taking out licences. Whenever new articles are to be manufactured, consent of the Central Government is necessary. Power has been given to the Central Government to cause investigations and searches to be made in respect of any scheduled industry. Then there are powers granted for direct management or control of such Industrial undertakings, by the Central Government in certain cases. Under certain circumstances the Central Government might authorise any person or body of persons to take over bodily the management of the whole undertaking and to manage the same. Then there are sweeping powers given to cancel or vary contracts not made in good faith, and no compensation is to be given to anyone for termination of office or contract. These are roughly the relevant provisions which are n