SBCWP NO.4443/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4443/1997. M/s.H.M.T. Limited, Ajmer Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 3, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kapil Manoj Chandra for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-M/s.H.M.T. Limited against the award dated 8/5/1997 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer who answered the Reference made to it by the Appropriate Government (State Government) vide notification dated 16/11/1993 on the question whether action of the General Manager in not recognizing the General Secretary HMT as the representative of the SBCWP NO.4443/97. 2 workman was legal and valid, and if not, for what relief he was entitled to? Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal held that such action of the General Manager HMT was not legal and that General Secretary of HMT was entitled to be recognized as representative of the workman and was entitled to any benefits which are admissible to such representative. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since there was no interim-order passed by this Court recognition under the Trade Union Act remains valid for a period of 2 years at one go and in this manner respondents availed of the benefit of the award. However, for the prospective purposes, learned counsel for petitioner cited Division Bench judgment of DBSAW No.196/1993 (M/s.H.M.T. Ltd. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and another) wherein also, same question raised whether the State Government was the appropriate authority within the meaning of Section 2E of the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947 to make a Reference in relation to the workman of HMT SBCWP NO.4443/97. 3 Ltd. Union that was respondent in that appeal was HMT Employees Union through its General Secretary. Division Bench on consideration of the law and subject held that the Central Government was the only competent authority and was therefore Appropriate Government to make reference as is provided under Section 2A. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition arguing that this question was not raised before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and therefore petitioner is precluded from raising this question before this Court. Even if objection was not raised before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, these objections raised to the route of the case and because in relation to industrial dispute concerning any authority of the Central Government, it is only the Union of India which is competent to make a reference as appropriate government in the meaning of Section 2A(1). This issue has been decided against the respondents by the Division Bench SBCWP NO.4443/97. 4 of this Court in above referred to judgment. No interim-order was passed by this court therefore whatever advantage respondent has availed of by virtue of impugned award, same would be liable to be saved and the writ petition filed by them however for prospective purpose, the award is set-aside. Respondent Union would however be at liberty to again approach the Central Government for making a fresh reference, if necessity arise. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil