1961 (9) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the State-appointed Conciliation Officer.
2. Definition and interpretation of "appropriate Government" under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Whether Mazagaon Dock Limited is an industry "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the State-appointed Conciliation Officer:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, requesting that the State-appointed Conciliation Officer (1st Respondent) abstain from proceeding with the conciliation of industrial disputes between Mazagaon Dock Limited (4th Respondent) and its workmen. The petitioners contended that since Mazagaon Dock Limited is an industry "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government," only Conciliation Officers appointed by the Central Government have jurisdiction over such disputes.

2. Definition and interpretation of "appropriate Government" under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The petitioners relied on the definition of "appropriate Government" under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which states:

"(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government... the Central Government; and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government."

The petitioners argued that Mazagaon Dock Limited falls under the category of an industry "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government," thereby making the Central Government the appropriate authority.

3. Whether Mazagaon Dock Limited is an industry "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government":

The court examined the circumstances under which Mazagaon Dock Limited was converted into a private limited company and subsequently had its entire share capital purchased by the Union of India in May 1960. The petitioners argued that due to the Central Government owning the entire share capital and the provisions in the Articles of Association, the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. They cited various Articles of Association that gave the President of India significant control over the company's affairs.

However, the court noted that despite the Central Government's ownership of the shares, the company operates independently under the Indian Companies Act. The business is conducted by the Board of Directors and not directly by the Central Government. The court emphasized that the company's constitution, governed by its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, provides it with an independent legal existence. The employees are not considered government servants, and the remuneration is paid by the company, not the Central Government.

The court referenced the case of Tamlin v. Hannaford, which held that a corporation, even if controlled by a government department, acts on its own behalf and is not an agent of the government. Similarly, in Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. P. K. Sarkar, the Calcutta High Court held that an industry carried on by a private company cannot be considered as carried on by or under the authority of the government.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that Mazagaon Dock Limited, despite being wholly owned by the Central Government, operates independently and is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Therefore, the State-appointed Conciliation Officer has jurisdiction over the industrial disputes concerning Mazagaon Dock Limited. The petitioners' contentions were found to be unfounded, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

Judgment:

The petition is dismissed with costs.