The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on industrial disputes between the Government and its employees, even when the conditions of service are laid down by the President under Art.309 of the Constitution.

1. I D No. 3 of 1974 and 1.D No. 27 of 1974 were referred by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication. The issues referred were:

"Whether the demands of the Central Government Production Centres 'Employees' Association of the Production and Extension Centres under the Directorate of Production Centres, Ettumanur in respect of the following matters are justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled?

1. Absorption of employees listed below as Miseries in the scale of Rs. 110-155 with effect from their dates of appointment and consequential payment of arrears of dues.

2. Re-designation of Ministries as Tradesmen, fitment at appropriate stage and normalisation in the relevant grades.

3. Framing of service rules of Ministries.

4. Provision of two sets of working dress per annum to all workshop staff." On these issues the Tribunal gave its answers in regard to Issue Nos.1 and 4 of I D. No 27 of 1974; but it did not answer Issue No. 2; and gave its finding on Issue No. 3 against the Un on. The workmen concerned, in respect of whom the dispute was referred for adjudication, were employees under the Government of India and the "employer" within the meaning of the Act was the Central Government or the Government of India. In regard to the conditions of service of the employees rules have been framed by the President under Art.309 of the Constitution. It was the Tribunal's view that as these rules (a copy of which is produced as Ext. R-1 in these proceedings; had laid down the conditions of service of the employees, it was no longer open to the Tribunal to go over the same ground and to proceed to lay down the conditions of service under its powers of adjudication. It was in this view that the Tribunal recorded its conclusions on Issues 2 and 3. The position would be clear from what was stated in Para.14 and following, of the Tribunal's Award, Ext. P-3. In Para.14 the Tribunal noticed the argument of counsel for the Union that it had the necessary powers to grant relief under issues 2 and 3. It noticed that the Junior Central Government Standing Counsel had no case on behalf of the management that the Production Centres in question are not industrial establishment*. The Tribunal observed:

"The Government servants are governed by the Service Rules, such as Fundamental Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) R.1965 framed by the Government of India. In view of the fact that they are civil services, that they get necessary protection by virtue of these Fundamental Rules, Civil Services Regulations, Central Civil Services (Classification. Control & Appeal; R.1965 etc.. I am of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify or alter those statutory rules and frame new sets of rules".

Lower down in Para.17 the Tribunal observed:

"Mr. M. Ramachandran, appearing for the Union argued that in deciding industrial disputes the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is very wide and that the Industrial Tribunal can confer rights and privileges upon parties which it may consider reasonable. The question is whether in exercise of such power, the Industrial Tribunal can do anything which will have effect of amending statutory provision."

It observed.

"As rightly pointed out by the Standing Counsel, the remedy of the Union is to approach the appropriate authorities and seek for alteration or modification of certain rules which are in the nature of hardship to them."

It wound up the relevant part of the discussion in Para.18, which is as follows:

"On the question of merits of the claim, no doubt, there is something to be stated in favour of the claim of the workers It is true that some of the Mistries have reached the maximum without any further chances of promotion and also those persons having the same qualification in other Companies are very well of. That is a matter for the consideration by the Central Government to give necessary relief and this