"appropriate Government" defined in Section 2 (a ). These cases with which we are concerned are in relation to other industrial disputes, other than those specified in Section 2 (a) (i ). The "appropriate Government" in relation to these disputes is the "state Government". The "state Government" is not defined in the Act and for this reason, resort is to be had to the definitions contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897. It says that in that Act and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of that Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, 'state Government' as respects anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, shall mean, in a State, the Governor, and in a Union Territory, the Central Government. Therefore, in the Union Territory of Delhi we have to read the "central Government" for the "state Government" in Section 2 (a) (ii) of the Act. The "appropriate Government" even in respect of disputes falling within Section 2 (a) (ii) of the Act is the "central Governmeni". The Central Government has issued the impugned notification dated April 14, 1975 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Act and the notification has been published in the Gazette of India dated April 26, 1975. The Division Bench in "leela Separators' case referred to the definitions contained in Section 3 (60) and 3 (8) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and came to thee conclusion that the words 'appropriate Government' in Section- 39 can be successively replaced by the words "state Government", "central Government" and "fresient" and consequently, the power to delegate under Section 39 can be exercised in any of those names. The delegation of the powers of the "state Government" by the impugned notification was upheld in that case. We are in respectfully agreement with that part of the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench.

( 18 ) IN C. W. P. No. 713 of 1981, M (s. India Tourism Development Corporation (for short called the Corporation) impugne the legality and validity of the award dated September 26, 1980 made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi on other grounds. The challenge is on these facts. Missaziz Marry Marcelina ('for short called the workman) was employed as a Trainee House Keeper since October 20, 1971 and was in the employment of Akbar Hotel of the Corporation. She applied for leave from December 22, 1973 to December 25, 1973 (both days inclusive) and the leave applied for was sanctiononed by the Corporation. She was scheduled to reort for duty on December 27, 1973 because December 26, 1973 was her. weekly off. The case of the Corporation is that after the leave originally sanctioned to her, no information, either orally or in writing, was received by the Corporation and as she failed to report for duty till January 3, 1974, she lost. the lien on her appointment and resultantly, her name stood struck off automatically from the rolls with effect from January 4, 1974 in terms of Model Standing Order No. 9 (3)' of Schedule I of the Industrial Eimplolyment ' (Standing! Orders) "central Rules, 1946 which is applicable to the Corporation. The said Rule reads :

"if the workman remains absent beyond the peariod of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless he (a) returns within 8 days of the leave and (b) explains to the' satisfaction of the employer or the officer specified in this behalf by the employer his inability to return before the expiry of his leave. In case the workman loses his lien on his appointment, he shall be entitled to be keep on the badli list. "the Corporation by letter dated January 4, 1974 addressed to the workman recorded the fact that she had lost her lien on her appointment in Akbar Hotel with effect from January 4, 1974 (afternoon) and called upon the workman to collect her dues in full and final settlement of her accounts. The stand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document