The ownership test is the crucial test to determine if an industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, not the management test.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Thozhilalar Shemanala Padhukappu Union, represented by its President, the petitioner in W.P. 2756 of 81, is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent herein are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this judgment as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. A dispute arose in 1979 between the second respondent Mills, hereinafter referred to as the Mills, and its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1978-79. The Mills had paid up advance bonus at 20 per cent of the earnings of its workmen. A settlement was reached in the course of conciliation on 18th November, 1980 under S.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, under which it was agreed that the bonus could be only at 12 per cent and the Mills were conjured the right to recover the excess of bonus paid in advance. This settlement was arrived at before the third respondent. At the time of the settlement, the petitioner was not even formed. To this settlement over 20 Unions, representating the workman of the Mills, were parties. This settlement is not being accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same by filing the writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 3 from effecting recovery of the bonus paid for the year 1978-79 in enforcement of this settlement dated 18th November, 1980. The writ petition was heard by Padmanabhan, J. Before the learned Judge, it was urged that the second respondent Mills is an industry carried on by and under the authority of the Central Government and hence the appropriate Government to appoint the Conciliation Officer is the Central Government and the third respondent, who is admittedly not a Concilation Officer appointed by the Central Government, was incompetent to conciliate the dispute and as such the settlement arrived at in the course of the conciliation before the third respondent on 18th November, 1980 is null and void and it cannot be enforced against the workmen of the Mills. This contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner was counter acted by the Mills by stating that the second respondent is not an industry either carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, so that the appropriate Government to appoint the Conciliation Officer could be found to be Central Government alone, and in any event, the settlement, until and unless it is set aside in accordance with law, is binding on all the workers, past and future. Padmanabhan, J. repelled the contentions puts forth on behalf of the petitioner and upheld take validity of the settlement dated 18th November, 1980 and as a result, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal by the petitioner.

2. Before us, the very same contentions that were advanced before the learned single Judged were put for by Mr. T. Fenn Walter, learned counsel appearing for the petition. That there was a conciliation before the third respondent in the course of which the settlement dated 18th November, 1980 was arrived at between the Mills and its workmen, represented by various Unions, is not in dispute. Equally so, the fact that at that time the petitioner was not even formed is not in dispute. Under S.2(d) of the Act, "Conciliation Officer" means a conciliation officer appointed under the Act. Section4 of the Act speaks about the appointment of conciliation officers by the appropriate Government. Section 2(a)(i) of the Act defines "appropriate Government"

"in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government ......" *

as the Central Government. If it is to be held that the Mills is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of S. 2(a)(i) of the Act, then the third respondent would be incompetent to conciliate