WP/279/1999 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 1999 Jagannath Bhagwan Pagar ... Petitioner V/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.Gayatri Singh for Petitioner Mrs.Meena Doshi for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 19, 2011 P.C.: 1. The issue involved in the petition is whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate government for the Respondent Corporation i.e. Bharat Electronics Limited. The Petitioner workman had filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act claiming certain reliefs. The Industrial Court has accepted the contentions of the employer that the State Government is not the appropriate government and that consequently a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act is not maintainable. 2. After arguing the matter for some time, Ms.Singh appearing for the Petitioner states, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court that in order to ensure that his dispute is resolved speedily, he wants to withdraw this petition and approach the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to obtain a reference for adjudication of the dispute. WP/279/1999 : 2 : 3. Ms.Singh, however, submits that in case a Reference is made, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court should not deprive the workman of the reliefs claimed by him for the period from 1994 only because he had chosen to file a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. She apprehends that the Petitioner would be deprived of these benefits if this Court does not clarify the position. She then submits that the respondent should not now be permitted to contend before the Regional Labour Commissioner or the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal when the dispute is referred that the appropriate government is not the Central Government but the State Government. 4. In my view, the suggestion of Ms.Singh is very fair. Although initially I had proposed that the parties consider the possibility of a joint Reference u/s 10(2), it appears that the respondent does not find such a procedure to be feasible. 5. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the petition. He may approach the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for obtaining a Reference for adjudication of his dispute. If such an approach is made within two weeks from today, the appropriate government shall decide whether a reference should be made within three months from the date of the justification statement being filed. 6. The Appropriate Government shall not refuse to make a reference only because the claim is stale as the matter has been pending before the Industrial Court and this Court for several years. It shall decide whether the Reference should be made only on merits. WP/279/1999 : 3 : 7. In case the appropriate Government makes a Reference for adjudication, the Tribunal/Labour Court shall not deprive the workman of the benefits to which he may be entitled only because he had approached a wrong forum and the reference has been made after such a long period of time. 8. It is obvious that the respondent will not now contend it is the State Government which is the appropriate Government and not the Central Government as all along, throughout the present litigation it has been the contention of the respondent that the appropriate government qua the respondent is the Central Government. It is expected that the Tribunal will decide the Reference, if made to it, as expeditously as possible. 9. The question of the Reference not being maintainable because of the provisions of section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act does not arise since the petitioner was litigating before a forum which had no jurisdiction. 10. Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. 11. Rule discharged. No costs.