1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a cement company, has assailed the legality and validity of its prosecution at the instance of respondent No. 2 purporting to act as the appropriate Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short CLRA Act). The petitioner has further prayed that it be declared that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in so far as implementation of CLRA Act is concerned.

2. Factual matrix giving rise to the instant petition are in narrow encompass and are stated infra–

The petitioner is a company registered under Companies Act having a cement project called Hirmi and is an establishment of cement industry engaged in manufacture and sale of cement. According to the petitioners, for the purposes of execution of work of the project, the contractors have been engaged for various works of construction, fabrication and execution of plant and colony.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a cement industry, the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner industry in the matter of application and enforcement of CLRA Act is the Central Government and not the State Government. The petitioner has got itself registered with the competent authority of the Central Government namely Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur who has issued necessary registration certificate (Annexure A). Similarly, the Contractor who has been allotted the work, has also got registered under the provisions of CLRA Act with the ALC (Central) and the registration certificate has been issued in favour of the Contractor.

4. The grievance of the petitioner arose when in September, 1992, Inspector in the office of Assistant Labour (State), Raipur division inspected the establishment and intimated the petitioners to apply for registration under the provisions of CLRA Act vide its letter Annexure-D. The petitioner submitted letter on 28.11.1992 (Annexure-E) stating that in relation to their establishment, the appropriate Government is the Central Government and the petitioner has already obtained registration under Section 7 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, it has not violated any provisions with regard to the registration. However, the petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and prosecution was launched by filing a complaint before the competent Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of CLRA Act in not getting itself registered with the Assistant Labour Commissioner of the department of Labour of the State Government.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is carrying out the activity of manufacture and sale of cement which is a controlled industry. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, as the Central Government has issued a notification on 08.11.1977 (Annexure-H) and this position has been clarified by the Central Government vide another letter dated 29.06.1987 (Annexure-C). Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in the cases of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, 2001(7) SCC 1, National Thermal Power Corporation and others vs. Badri Singh Thakur and others, 2008(9) SCC 377, Workmen of Bagalkot Udvoq Ltd. vs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. and others, 2001(1) LLJ 621, (Karnataka) and order dated 18.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 2982 of 1993 (Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Kymore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and batch of writ petitions.

6. On the other hand, ,learned State counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that when inspection was carried out in the establishment, it was found that the petitioner has not obtained requisite registration certificate from the State authorities as required under Section 7 of the CLRA Act from the appropriate Government which is punishable under Section 24 of the said Act and accordingly, the concerned I