JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the institute'), tor challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court cum Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Industrial Tribunal) passed on April 29, 1989 vide Annex. P. 1 in [CASE NUMBER] between the General Secretary of the [PRECEDENT], is that the State Government was not authorised to refer the demand notice containing four demands of the workers to the Industrial Tribunal for the reason that the reference could only be made by the Central Government under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (called hereinafter as 'the Act of 1947').
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Central Government was the appropriate Government in the present case and, therefore, any reference made by the State Government was not a competent reference and the Industrial Tribunal could not have the jurisdiction to try the same. However, on merits the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of demands No. 7 and 11 in favour of the respondent Union has not been challenged by the petitioner and rightly so.
3. The facts, as stated in the writ petition by the petitioner Institute, are that a reference was made by the State Government under [SECTION] of the Act of 1947 for adjudication of the four demands as mentioned in the Charter of Demandsi.e. DemandsNo.4,7, 11, 14. Thedemands are enumerated as under:-
"Demand No. 4: Sweepers may be given 2 kg. of soap in a month and 2 metres cloth for duster;
Demand No. 7: Those workmen who have completed 240 days service may be made workcharged employees;
Demand No. 11 : Shri [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY] who have become over-aged may be regularised on the basis of the age attained by them at the time of their initial appointment;
Demand No. 14 : The employees may be given paid holidays on national holidays and other festivals."
4. The Industrial Tribunal had held that demands No. 7 and 11 are justified and other demands were held to be not justified.
5. Being aggrieved by the award dated April 29, 1989, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Institute.
6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner Institute was controlled and connected with the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate Government for the purpose of reference in the present case was the Central Government and not the State Government. This objection was taken before the Industrial Tribunal as well. However, the petitioner Institute did not lead any evidence in support of its objection nor did attach any document to show that the petitioner Institute was a part of the Central Government.
7. The petitioner in this connection relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] wherein while determining the status of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institute even though it is registered as a Society under the [ACT], it was wholly financed by the Government of India and its budget was voted upon as a part of the expenses incurred in the Ministry of Agriculture, was a State within the meaning of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The petitioner has also taken an objection to the effect that the petitioner is not an industry as defined in [SECTION] of the Act of 1947 and that the petitioner is not a juristic person and, therefore, no suit or proceedings can be initiated against it. These additional objections now being taken in the writ petition were neither taken before the Industrial Tribunal nor argued before it and, therefore, they were not determined by the Industrial Tribunal. Here in the High Court also no arguments have been addressed on these additional objections i.e. whether the petitioner is an industry or a juristic person or not. Therefore, I may not go into these objections.
8. The respondent Union has filed a written-statement and had denied the averments made in the petition. The respondent Union states that the petitioner Institute is an industry and the award of the Industrial Tribunal is in consonance with law.
9. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in [PRECEDENT] that the petitioner Institute is an industry under the [ACT] and, therefore, even though it had neither been argued before the Industrial Tribunal nor before this Court, it has been authoritatively settled by this Court that the petitioner Institute is an industry under [SECTION] of the Act of 1947.
10. [SECTION] of the Act of 1947 defines the appropriate Government for the purposes of referring the disputes to the Tribunal which reads as under:
"2. Definitions. - In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
(a) "appropriate Government" Means -
(i) in relation to any Industrial Dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an Industrial Dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Board of Trustees constituted under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under [SECTION] and [SECTION], respectively, of the [ACT], or the 'Indian Airlines' and "Air India" Corporations established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the [ACT], or the [ACT], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Unit Trust of India established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Food Corporation of India established under [SECTION], or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the International Airports Authority of India constituted under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or a Regional Rural Bank established under [SECTION] of the [ACT], or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India, or the Banking Service Commission established under [SECTION] of the [ACT] or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil-field, a Cantonment Board for a major port, the Central Government, and
(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State Government."
11. It is apparent from the definition above that all those industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or in, relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the Indian Airlines, the Air India Corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Agricultural. Refinance Corporation, the Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Unit Trust of India, the Food Corporation of India, Regional Rural Bank, or the Banking Service Commission or a Banking or an Insurance Company, a mine, an oil field, or a Cantonment Board, or a major port, the Central Government would be the appropriate Government. In respect of other industrial disputes it would be the State Government. It would be seen from the above definition that unless the institute came within the purview of the words "any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or being a controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government." The other Corporation or bodies mentioned in [SECTION] did not include the present institute and, therefore, in this case, the Central Government would not be the appropriate Government.
12. Even though the petitioner Institute ought to have established its averments by leading some evidence before the Tribunal below or atleast should have attached any document with the writ petition to substantiate its argument, but no such thing has been done by the petitioner. But still to attract tile provisions of [SECTION] a notification by the Central Government specifying it as a controlled industry is necessary. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of [SECTION] with reference to that industry would not be the Central Government unless there is a notification by the Central Government in that behalf for the purposes of [SECTION]. The Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"Though sugar is a controlled industry under the Schedule to the [ACT] the Appropriate Government for the purposes of [SECTION], [ACT] with reference to that industry would not be the Central Government unless there is a notification by the Central Government in that behalf for purposes of [SECTION]. In order that the Appropriate Government under [SECTION] may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of [SECTION]. It is not enough that an industry should be controlled industry to attract this provision of [SECTION]."
13. Yet in another case i.e. in [PRECEDENT] their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under at pp. 265-266:
"(12) The last contention urged is that the reference is invalid inasmuch as the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not competent to refer the present dispute for adjudication under [SECTION] with [SECTION] of the Act. The argument is that the Textile Industry has been included at serial No. 23 in the First Schedule to the [ACT] and as such the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not the appropriate Government under [SECTION] of the Act. It is urged that the present dispute could have been validly referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal only by the Central Government. [SECTION] inter alia defines the appropriate Government as meaning, in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, the Central Government. The question which arises is: has the textile industry been specified as controlled industry in this behalf by the Central Government? It is true that the textile industry is controlled by the provisions of the Act 65 of 1951 and in that sense it is controlled industry, but that would not be enough to attract the application of [SECTION] of the Act. What this latter provision requires is that the Central Govern- ment must specify "in this behalf" that the industry in question is a controlled industry; in other words the specification must be made by the Central Government by reference to, and for the purpose of, the provi- sions of the Act in order that the Central Government may itself become the appropriate Government qua such industry under [SECTION] of the Act."
14. Reliance has also been placed on a Single Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in [PRECEDENT] wherein while dealing with the case of the petitioner which is a part of Central Scientific and Industrial Research, the Court had held that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government for the purposes of making reference under [SECTION] of the Act but it is the State Government which can make the reference.
15. The Delhi High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] had held as under :
"(27) Applying the text of agency, I cannot say that this Corporation is the agent of the Central Government and is carrying on business "under the authority of the Central Government. " It will be illegitimate to hold that a Corporation carries on industry under the authority of the Central Government though an incorporated company such as Heavy Engineering is not carrying on business under the authority of the Central Government. If a company incorporated under the [ACT] is an independent entity, a new person, as the Supreme Court has said, the same principle will apply with greater force of logic to these commercial Corporations which are the creations of the Acts of the legislature and perform their functions and duties within the framework of the Statute. If the Central Government has a dominant role to play in connection with these Corporations it is because such is the will of the legislature. It is not the will of the Central Government. The Central Government merely obeys the command of the legislature. So these Corporations carry on business under the authority of the acts of the legislature which created them. It is not possible, therefore, to accept the argument that the Central Government is the master of this Corporation and that this Corporation carries on industry "under the authority of the Central Government." After the decision of [PRECEDENT] and the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] the theory that these corporations act under the authority of the Central Government no longer holds the field."
16. It is not shown by way of any evidence as to how the petitioner Institute is part of the Central Government or is carried on by the Central Government or whether any notification has been issued for bringing the petitioner Institute into the scope of [SECTION] of the Act for the purposes of making reference by the Central Government.
17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 2000/-.