CIVIL WRIT JUDICATURE CASE NO.1669 OF 1993 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------- THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S KALYANPUR LIME & CEMENT WORKS LTD, BANJARI, DISTT- ROHTAS THROUGH ITS TECHNICAL DIRECTOR---- ---------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARMENT OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, PATNA, BIHAR 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DALMIANAGAR 3. GENERAL SECRETARY, KALYANPUR MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT, BANJARI, ROHTAS-------------------- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. V.N.Sahay,Advocate, & Mr. Arun Srivastava,Advocate For the State: Mr. A.K.Jha, G.A.-2 & Mr. Uday Bhan Singh JC to GA-2 ---------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** A.K.Tripathi,J Award dated 31st August, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Dalmianagar in Reference Case No. 4 of 1987 is under challenge in the present writ application. Legal and technical objection has been raised against the impugned award by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. His submission is that the reference made by the State Government i.e. Government of Bihar, Department of Labour under section 10 (1) ( c) of the Industrial Dispute Act was beyond jurisdiction and competence of the State Government because the appropriate Government with regard to Cement Industry is the Central Government in terms of definition contained in section 2 ( a) read with section 10( 1) ( c ) of the Industrial Dispute Act and in that view of the matter the award - 2 - rendered by the labour court based on reference made by an incompetent authority to that extent is invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit has also brought on record notifications issued by the Government of India under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Dispute Act which indicates that the Cement Industry is a controlled industry and Central Government is the appropriate authority under the Act. Though the question raised at the bar in support of the writ application does not seem to have been raised by the petitioner at any point of time before the labour court but in view of the provision as envisaged under the Industrial Dispute Act and the notifications issued thereunder there seems to be some force in the submission made by the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the private respondent. However learned counsel for the State is present. He is unable to clarify the position on the issue as to under what provision and authority the State Government made a reference under section 10 (1) ( c) of the Industrial Dispute Act when the Central Government has notified itself to be the competent/appropriate Government in this regard. The reference made not in accordance with the law under the Industrial Dispute Act by an incompetent authority goes to the root of the matter and therefore even though the question may not have been raised earlier it is being considered by the - 3 - Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ application is allowed on this limited question and the award dated 31st August, 1992 passed in Reference Case No. 4 of 1987 is hereby quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 2nd December, 2008 NAFR ( RPS)