Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Shri Yashwant Verma for the petitioner and Shri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Vivek Misra for the respondent-workman.

2. This petition is directed against an award of the labour Court dated 17.8.1998 as published on 21.12.1998 answering the reference in favour of the workman and granting him reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. The petitioner Institute of Technology is a declared Institution of National Importance established and managed under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) imparting instruction and research in various branches of Engineering, Technology, Science and Arts where the Board of Governors is responsible for general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Institute and is also empowered to take policy decision with regard to the administration and working of the Institute.

4. In exercise of its powers, Board of Governors decided to set up a Health Centre within the premises of the Institute for the benefit of its students, faculty and employees etc. The respondent workman was appointed as a Compounder in the said Health Centre on a probation of one year vide letter dated 13.5.1975. It is pleaded that no order of confirmation was passed and he continued in service but it was terminated vide order dated 31.12.1977 in exercise of powers under Statute 13 (3) treating his services to be temporary in nature.

5. It is further pleaded that the workman filed a Suit No. 21 of 1978 seeking a declaration that he had become a permanent employee after expiry of the period of probation and, therefore, his termination was null and void. The suit was contested and after contest it was dismissed on merits vide order and judgment dated 25.4.1988 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The workman subjected the said decision to Appeal No. 198 of 1988 which was also dismissed on merits vide order and judgment dated 12.8.1992. It is further pleaded that thereafter he approached the State Government which treated his termination as a dispute and referred it under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1995 as to whether the termination was justified. On being summoned the parties led their respective evidence whereafter the impugned award has been rendered holding that the appropriate Government was the State Government; the decision in the civil suit would not operate as res judicata and after expiry of the initial probation the workman stood confirmed on his post.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three principle arguments in support of this petition. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner Institute is being run by and under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate Government for the purposes of adjudication of industrial dispute was the Central Government. Secondly, it is urged that the judgment rendered by the civil Court would operate as res judicata and the workman or the labour Court cannot be allowed to go behind the said decision especially when the judgment was rendered on merits. Lastly, it is urged that the services of the workman were governed by the Statutes of the Institute and there is no question of automatic confirmation in view of the provisions contained therein and at best the workman could be treated as a temporary employee unless there was an order of confirmation.

7. The term “appropriate Government” has been subject matter of a large number of decisions of various High Courts and the Apex Court. Finally, a Constitution Bench in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, 2001 (7) SCC 1, examined all the case laws on the issue and settled the matter finally. The Constitution Bench while considering the interpretation of the expression “appropriate Government” as appearing in the Contract Labour (Regula