P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to quash the order of the Labour Court Baroda wherein the Labour Court has held that the subsequent notification changing the appropriate Government in relation to a certain industry will not invalidate the reference made by the appropriate Government at the time the dispute was referred. Mr. Bhatt the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of the notification dated 21-6-1985 the Central Government was specified as appropriate Government for oil industry. At the time of the reference under sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 the appropriate Government was the State Government in respect of this particular industry. In as much as there is a change in the appropriate Government subsequent to the matter having been referred to the Labour Court under the powers conferred under sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act Mr. Bhatt the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ceased to have jurisdiction. This he wanted to fortify by submitting that as per sec. 1? of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 the appropriate Government has to publish the award that will be passed by the Labour Court. Since at the time of passing the award the appropriate Government will not be the State Government the difficulty will arise for publication of the award concerned.

( 2 ) WE issued notice on this petition and Mr. N. J. Mehta entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. S. D. Shah entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent. Both of them contended that the appropriate Government is that Government which has referred the dispute to the Labour Court under sec. 10 that it continues to be the appropriate Government and that when any award is passed by the Labour Court the said appropriate Government which referred the matter will publish it under sec. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is unnecessary for us to site any decision for the clear proposition that it is only that appropriate Government which referred the matter will be the appropriate Government for publishing the report or award under sec. 17 even though the appropriate Government is changed during the pendency of the award proceedings by virtue of any notification by the Government on the strength of sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947

( 3 ) IN any way we make reference to one decision cited by Mr. N. J. Mehta the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Others reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227. No doubt this is with reference to sec. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the applicability of the said section in respect of the pendency of the proceedings. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 53 and 58 has observed as follows:53 The words `has been referred in sec. 11a are no doubt capable of being interpreted as making the section applicable to references made even prior to 15 But is the section so expressed as to plainly make it applicable to such references ? In our opinion there is no such indication in the section. In the first places as we have already pointed out the section itself has been brought into effect only some time after the Act had been passed. The proviso to sec. 11a which is as much part of the section refers to in any proceeding under this section. Those words are very significant. There cannot be a proceeding under this section before the section itself has come into force. A proceeding under that section can only be on or after 15-12-1971. That also gives indication that sec. 11a applies only to disputes which are referred for adjudication after the section has come into force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 We have already expresse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document