( 1. ) HARI Shanker Namdeo, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition, was employed as a temporary lower division clerk in the Security Paper Mill, Hosahangabad, which is a Paper Mill established by the central Government for manufacture of paper for printing currency-notes. Under the Rules of the Paper Mill, a person, before he is employed, is required to fill in a form known as attestation Form wherein he is required to furnish details of his antecedents including all previous employments. The attestation form contains a warning that if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of the person, his services would be liable to be terminated. Respondent No. 1 in his attestation form did not disclose that he was employed temporarily as a lower division clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Hoshan-gabad, during the period from 28th April 1962 to 26th October 1964. An enquiry was held against the respondent for suppression of this information and he was dismissed from service by order dated 23rd November 1973. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 369 of 1974 which was allowed by a Division Bench by order dated 25th August 1975 on the ground that the respondent was not given reasonable opportunity to meet the charge on which he was dismissed. A fresh enquiry was thereafter held against the respondent and he was again dismissed by order dated 23rd November 1976. At the time when the second order of dismissal was passed, an application made by the respondent under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was pending before the labour Court. The General Manager of the Security Paper Mill applied to the Labour Court under section 33 (2) (b) for approval of the order of dismissal. The respondent contended before the Labour Court that he was a "protected workman" and so his case fell under section 33 (3) and that the order of dismissal was passed mala fide to victimize him for his trade union activities. Both the contentions raised by the respondent were accepted by the Labour Court and the application made by the General Manager was dismissed by order dated 4th May 1977. It is this order which the General manager challenges by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2. ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant or refuse approval or permission to the petitioner for dismissing the respondent under sub-section (2) or (3) of section 33 of the Act and the entire proceeding taken by the petitioner for obtaining the approval or permission by the Labour Court was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction for two reasons :

(i) that the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, being an undertaking established by the Central government in the exercise of its sovereign functions, was not an "industry"; and

(ii) that there was no conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute pending within the meaning of section 33 (2) on the date when the petitioner dismissed the respondent. The first hurdle before the learned counsel for the petitioner in advancing the contention of want of jurisdiction is that the petitioner himself made the application before the Labour Court for approval of the dismissal order and did not at any stage question the jurisdiction of the Labour court. It was only when the decision of the Labour Court went against the petitioner that he took up the point of want of jurisdiction in this petition before us.

( 3. ) IN M/s. Pannalal Bhinjraj v. Union of India (AIR 1957 S C 397 at p. 412) it was h