1998 (3) TMI 576 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of references made to the Labour Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate disputes.
3. Fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of References Made to the Labour Court:
The appellant-corporation challenged the references made by the workmen to the Labour Court under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen had been dismissed after a domestic enquiry found them guilty of accepting bribes. The Labour Court held that the references were valid, as they were made within the prescribed period of six months from the date of the dismissal. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming that the references were indeed valid.

2. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court to Adjudicate Disputes:
The appellant-corporation contended that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because the references were not made by the 'appropriate Government,' which they argued was the Central Government. The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge both held that the 'appropriate Government' was the State Government. The High Court examined the structural composition and functional aspects of the corporation, noting that although the Central Government had pervasive control over the corporation, it did not run the corporation directly. The High Court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar, which established that a company incorporated under the Companies Act remains a distinct juristic entity separate from its shareholders. Therefore, the corporation was not carrying on its business under the authority of the Central Government. The High Court concluded that the State Government was the appropriate Government for making references to the Labour Court.

3. Fairness of the Domestic Enquiry Conducted by the Management:
The fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workmen was also questioned. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The appellant-corporation challenged this finding, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the corporation could challenge the interim order when the final award was passed by the Labour Court. The High Court agreed with this decision, confirming that the corporation could raise the issue at the appropriate time.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the references made to the Labour Court were valid and that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes. The court also upheld the finding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, allowing the corporation to challenge this finding at a later stage. The judgment confirmed that the State Government, not the Central Government, was the appropriate Government for making references concerning the corporation.