IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19723 of 1999 Between: MECON Non-Executive Employees Union, Rep by its President, Sri E.Sankara Rao, Door No.34-7-40, Park Street, Ganapuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Visakhpatnam-530 020 2 The Mangement of Metallurgical and Engineering Constultants (Indian) Ltd., (MECON),Rep by its General Manger, 5th Floor, R.T.C.Complex, Visakhpatnam -530 020 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records from the 1st Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and Quash the Award passed by the Ist Respondent in I.D.No.321 of 1994, dated 13-4-1998, published on 17-6-1998 in rejecting the reference as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19723 OF 1999 O R D E R The action of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in rejecting the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) by its Award dated 13.04.1998 is challenged in this writ petition. The second respondent Company is wholly owned by the Government of India having regional offices across the country. The dispute between the Management of the second respondent Company and its employees Union by name MECON Non-Executive Employees Union, Visakhapatnam, with regard to the regularization of the services of about 30 employees who had been recruited during the years 1983-85 was the subject matter of W.A.No.224 of 1991. The said writ appeal was taken up for hearing along with W.P.No.10472 of 1991 filed by individual employees of the second respondent Company seeking regularization of their services. By the common order dated 19.07.1994, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the two cases directing that the individual employees who were petitioners in W.P.No.10472 of 1991 should raise an industrial dispute with regard to their regularization in service before the concerned Conciliation Officer and that in the event of the failure of the conciliation, the appropriate Government should refer the dispute to the concerned industrial forum for industrial adjudication within a time frame. In view of the failure of the conciliation proceedings, it appears that the Government of Andhra Pradesh made a reference of the dispute under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The reference was numbered as I.D.No.321 of 1994. The Industrial Tribunal, during the course of its enquiry found that ‘the appropriate Government’ to make the reference was the Central Government and not the State Government. This aspect came to light in view of the retrenchment of certain workers by the second respondent which required the Industrial Tribunal to go into the issue as to whether the provisions of Chapter-5A or Chapter-5B of the Act of 1947 would have application. It was in this process that the Industrial Tribunal found that the respondent Unit at Visakhapatnam employed more than 100 workmen and more than 51% of the share capital of the second respondent was held by the Central Government, as it was wholly owned by it. Once this fact was established, the necessary consequence was that only the Central Government was the ‘appropriate Government’ as per Section 25-L(b) of the Act of 1947, to make the subject reference to the Industrial Tribunal. As this issue went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain and adjudicate the reference, the Industrial Tribunal correctly held that the reference was incompetent, having been made by the State Government which was not ‘the appropriate Government’ to make the reference. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal, being lawful and valid, does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 6TH MARCH, 2009. PGS