H. K. RATHOD, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. D. Gandhi for M/s. Nanavati Associates for petitioner-Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited.

2. By filing this petition under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.C.) No. 18 of 1995 (Old Number) and 1618 of 2008 (New Number) Exh. 48 dated 16th January, 2010. Industrial Tribunal (Central) has dismissed application Exh. 48 submitted by petitioner-Bank and has fixed further hearing of said Reference on 1st February, 2010. During the course of hearing, prayer was made by learned Advocate for petitioner to amend prayer and has prayed for permitting petitioner for praying to stay proceedings of said Reference and order Exh. 48 both. Such prayer is granted. Petitioner is directed to amend accordingly.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi for petitioner raised contention before this Court that before Industrial Tribunal (Central), application was made by petitioner-Bank on 19-9-2008 raising preliminary contention vide Exh. 48 that in view of the recent decision of Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Co-operative Bank Mumbai Ltd. v. Co-operative Bank Employees' Association, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2320 : 2007 (2) CLR 180, appropriate Government is the State Government and not the Central Government, therefore, Reference which has been made by Central Government against present petitioner is not legal and valid and in respect of present petitioner-Bank, State Government is appropriate Government under Sec. 2(a) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Said application was replied by present respondent raising objection on 16th September, 2009. Copy of reply received by petitioner on same day 16th September, 2009. The Petitioner has, in support of its submission, relied upon copy of application made by employer to Central Government Industrial Tribunal Bombay in Reference No. CGIT 2/52 of 2005 dated 23rd October, 2007 raised contention by employer Bank raising same contention before Industrial Tribunal Central Government, Bombay. Said contention has been examined by Presiding Officer, AA Lad, Industrial Tribunal (Central) No.2 in Reference No. 2/52 of 2005 and came to the conclusion in respect to employer Bank relying upon Apex Court decision in case of Bharat Co-operative Bank (supra) that appropriate Government is not Central Government but State Government by order dated 7-10-2008. Accordingly, Reference was disposed of by Industrial Tribunal for want of jurisdiction of the said Industrial Tribunal (Central). This order has been passed by Industrial Tribunal (Central) Bombay on 7th October, 2008. Said decision of Bombay Tribunal has been relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that Industrial Tribunal (Central) has committed gross error in rejecting application filed by petitioner Exh. 48. He also submitted that law laid down by Apex Court is binding to subordinate Courts under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. Even though, decision, though relied by petitioner, not accepted by Industrial Tribunal (Central) on the ground that such decision is not having any retrospective effect and decision of Apex Court is also not much clear whether it applies with retrospective effect or with prospective effect? He also submitted that the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) is erroneous because it is settled law that judicial decision, unless otherwise specified, is retrospective in effect while relying upon decision of Apex Court in case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3121 : 2009 (7) SCC 205 where Apex Court has held that judicial decision, unless otherwise specified, are having retrospective effect. They would only be in prospective in nature if it has been provided therein. He also relied upon another decision in case of M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3821 : 2003 (7) SCC 517 and submitt