The issue, which has been posed for consideration in this writ petition turns around the definition of `appropriate Government as mentioned in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "CLRA Act"). Since the term `appropriate Government is to be determined with reference to the definition of the said term as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the ID Act") essentially, certain provisions of the ID Act also come up for consideration. By the nature of the activity carried on by the petitioner, the provisions of the Aircraft Act and the Rules framed thereunder as also the International Airports Authority Act, 1971 and Airports Authority of India Act have also come up for consideration.

2. Thepetitioner, Cochin International Airport, a public limited company was incorporated under the Companies Act, with the object of constructing, Commissioning, operating, managing and maintaining an Airport of international standards. The Government of Kerala currently holds 33.33% of the equity shares and public hold 63% of the shares of the company.

3. The petitioner company commenced construction of the buildings, airfield, taxi tracks, structures and allied facilities for the Airport. The work was awarded to contractors. The contractors, who were awardedwork, had obtained licences from the licensing authority of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner, in turn, had applied for registration at the registering office of the Government of Kerala under Section 7 of the CLRA Act.

4. The petitioner makes reference to certain steps which were originally taken as early as in the year 1996 by the 2nd respondent, being the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), the registering authority of the Central Government under the Act, inter alia, requiring the petitioner to register its establishment under the Act. The petitioner gave a reply repudiating the authority of the 2nd respondent, contending that it has already registered with the registering authority of the State Government. It seems that there was a gap of about 10 years and thereafter, by Ext. P-5 communication in the year 2006, the respondents herein are stated to have called upon the petitioner requiring it to take steps to register itself as a principal employer with the registering authority of the Central Government. To Ext. P-5 letter issued, the petitioner submitted Ext. P-6 detailed reply. This was met with Ext. P-7 requiring the petitioner to show cause why punitive action shall not be taken against the petitioner for not taking action under Sections 23 and 24 of the CLRA Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is, at this juncture, that the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P-5 and P-7 and also seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from taking steps against the petitioner or its Managing Director or other Directors under the CLRA Act.

5. Thegist of the contentions taken up by the petitioner is that it has registered itself with the competent registering authority of the State Government and State Government is the "Appropriate Government" insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

6. Section 7 of the CLRA Act deals with registration of establishments and every principal employer of an establishment, to which the Act applies, has to make an application for registration of the establishment in the prescribed Coml. There are separate Registration Officers under the Central Government and the State Government. `Appropriate Government as such is defined in Section 2 (a) of the CLRA Act as the `Central Government in relation to an establishment in respect of which the `appropriate Government under the ID Act is the Central Government and `State Government in relation to any other establishment.

7. `Appropriate Government is defined in Section 2(a) of the ID Act and in relation to an industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, it is the `