1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2009 Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh .. Petitioner. V/s. Air Works India Engineering Pvt., Ltd., & Ors., .. Respondents. Mr. N.M.Ganguli, for Petitioner Mr. S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel, a/w. Ms. Rekha Rajgopal, i/b. Malar Manoharan, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM: S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED: 28th JULY, 2009. P.C. 1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner, impugning the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 21st June, 2008, dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner on the ground that the Respondent No.1 is in the business of air transport service and the appropriate authority is the Central Government and the industrial Court under MRTU and PULP Act has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. srj/- 2 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 has submitted before this Court that the Industrial Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.1 has not established that it is in the business of air transport service. 3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 has drawn my attention to a copy of the license issued to the Respondent No.1 by the office of Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India (page 123 of the complaint), which itself states that it is PERMIT TO OPERATE NON-SCHEDULED AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES (PASSENGER/CARGO/CHARTER) . The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 has also drawn my attention to the decision of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2006  III CLR 346 wherein this Court has decided a similar dispute. Paragraph 8 of the said decision is relevant and reproduced hereunder:- Para 8:- There is no dispute between the parties that petitioner is an Air transport service . A copy of the licence issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation to the petitioner (bearing permit no.1/93) was produced on record before the Labour Court and a copy thereof is also filed in this Court. The licence specifically states that the petitioner is permitted to operate air transport service other than the scheduled air srj/- 3 transport service, under Rule 134(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Therefore, in respect of the industry carried out by the petitioner, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. The appropriate Labour Court in respect of the petitioner industry would therefore be the Central Labour Court and not the State Labour Court. 4. In view thereof, the impugned order has been passed after proper application of mind as well as the law on the subject. No interference is called under the Writ Jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) srj/-