9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "appropriate government" under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to disputes involving industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Analysis: The case involved an appeal challenging the dismissal of an application for a writ of 'mandamus' or 'certiorari' by Banerjee J. The appellants, a limited company manufacturing soda water, had entered into an agreement with the Governor-General in Council for catering rights on the East Indian Railway system. A trade dispute arose between the appellants and their workmen, leading to a reference for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal. The key contention was regarding the appropriate government empowered to refer the dispute for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Disputes Act, specifically Section 10(1), allows the appropriate government to refer disputes to a Tribunal for adjudication. The term "appropriate government" is defined under Section 2(a)(i) as the Central Government in cases concerning industries carried on by or under its authority. The appellants argued that the Central Government should have jurisdiction over the dispute due to their business being carried on under the authority of the Central Government. However, the Court, in its analysis, emphasized that industries carried on by or under the authority of the Government refer to those directly operated by the Government or through authorized entities. The business conducted by the appellants, although involving a contract with the Government for providing amenities on railway property, was deemed as their own business conducted for personal profit. The Court clarified that the appellants were not authorized to carry on a Government business but were licensees operating their own business under a contract with the Government. The judgment highlighted that the control exercised by the Government under the contract did not transform the appellants' business into a Government-owned or authorized enterprise. The Court concluded that the industrial dispute between the appellants and their employees fell within the jurisdiction of the State Government of West Bengal under the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the petition for a writ of 'mandamus' or 'certiorari' was rightfully dismissed by Banerjee J., and the appeal was subsequently rejected with costs. In a concurring opinion, Das, J. agreed with the reasoning and decision of the Court, affirming that the appellants were conducting their own business and not a Government-owned or authorized industry, thus upholding the dismissal of the appeal.
|
