Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against a Labour Court award dated 7.6.2001 as published on 22.8.2001.

3. The respondent workman holding the post of a Clerk in the petitioner establishment raised a claim that he is entitled to the designation and pay scale of a Technical Supervisor since he was performing the work of that post. Upon a failure report of the Conciliation Officer, the State Government referred it as an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Kanpur which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 230 of 1996.

4. The case set up by the workman before the Labour Court was that he was holding the post of a clerk in the Carding and Spinning Department but on the retirement of the Technical Supervisor in April, 1994, he started discharging his functions since May, 1994 but without corresponding designation or pay scale. The petitioner contested the claim and alleged that the workman was engaged as a clerk in the Carding and Spinning Department on 13.5.1988 and was made permanent on 1.1.1992 and is still working as such and he was not working as a Technical Supervisor and he does not hold the qualification of the said post and in between the two posts, there was a post of non Technical Supervisor and he cannot leapfrog on the said post. It was further alleged that the Company has been declared sick under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act and majority of the workmen, including Technical Supervisors, have taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the post thus stood abolished with their retirement. The parties thereafter led their respective evidence, both oral and documentary.

5. Before the parties led their oral evidence, the petitioner filed an application dated 26.2.1998 to amend its written statement with the allegation that since the petitioner was owned and controlled by the Central Government and was functioning under its authority, the appropriate Government was the Central Government and the reference by the State Government was bad and referred to the decision of the Apex Court and decision of the Central Labour Authorities. The workman filed his objection. The Labour Court vide order dated 9.2.1998 rejected the application on the ground of delay and that the decision of the Apex Court was not in respect to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed additional written statement dated 11.8.1998 incorporating the same objection in its written statement and the workman filed its reply.

6. After the parties were heard, the Labour Court passed the impugned award that the workman though was neither appointed as Technical Supervisor, nor held the technical qualification, but as he was performing the same work as that of a Technical Supervisor, he was entitled to its wages and designation. In regard to the competence of the State Government to make the reference, it held against the petitioner.

7. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that after promulgation of the British India Corporation Ltd. (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1981 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), the industry of the petitioner is being carried by and under the authority of the Central Government, thus in view of Section 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the appropriate Government to make a reference is the Central Government and accordingly, the reference in the present case being made by the State Government, therefore the reference itself was incompetent and consequentially all the proceedings are vitiated. To the contrary, the respondent contends that at best the petitioner may be a ‘’State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it has deep and pervasive control, but the industry is not being run by or under the authority of the Central Government and its shares are also held by State Bank of India and other statutory authorities. In the