ORDER :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. The respondent no. 3 in the instant writ petition raised an industrial dispute against the petitioners claiming that he was employed as peon by the petitioners on 22.2.1993 and that his services were illegally terminated on 7.10.1998. He raised an industrial dispute wherein he prayed for reinstatement with all back wages and continuity of service. The claim of the respondent no. 3 was contested by the petitioners and thereafter an award, which is under challenged in this writ petition, dated 22.1.2010 was passed. The petitioners have challenged the instant award on the very same grounds on which they had opposed the claim of the respondent no. 3 before the Labour Tribunal. The petitioners assailed the award essentially on three grounds:

I. The petitioners were not an industry.

II. There existed no relationship of an employee and an employer between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners.

III. The State Government was not the competent authority to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal when the petitioners were a body which found their existence on account of a central enactment of the Parliament.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the first instance, before it was seen as to whether the petitioners were an industry or whether there existed a relationship of an employer and an employee between the petitioners and the respondent no. 3, the question as to whether the State Government was authorized to refer the matter to the Labour Tribunal or whether it was the Central Government which ought to have made the reference had to be seen.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were an autonomous body which came into existence on account of the Act No. 38 of 1949 enacted by the Parliament of India, and, therefore, the appropriate Government as per sub section 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be the Central Government.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that not only the petitioners came into existence because of the Act No. 38 of 1949 but all its activities were controlled by the Central Government. The Act came into existence on account of it's notification in the Official Gazette of the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners read out the Sections 1 and 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, as also the preamble and, therefore, the same are being reproduced here as under:-

1. Short title, extent and commencement. – (1) This Act may be called the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

(2) It extends to the whole of India.

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf.

2. Interpretation. – (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, –

(a) “associate” means an associate member of the Institute;

[(aa) “Authority” means the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 22A;]

[(aaa) “Board” means that Quality Review Board constituted under Section 28A;]

(b) “chartered accountant” means a person who is a member of the Institute.

(c) “Council” means the Council of the Institute;

[(ca) “firm” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, (9 of 1932), and includes, –

(i) the limited liability partnership as defined in clause (n) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009); or

(ii) the sole proprietorship, registered with the Institute;]

(d) “holder of a restricted certificate” means a person holding a permanent or temporary restricted certificate granted by a [State] Government under the Restricted Certificate Rules, 1932;

(e) “Institute” means the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India constituted under this Act;

[(ea) “notification” means a notification published in the Official Gazette;]

[(eb) “partner” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) o