CWP No. 10558 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10558 of 2001 Date of decision: 17.05.2010 Central Institute of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the reference made to the Labour Court, Ludhiana by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.04.2001 (Annexure P-13). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-Central Institute of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana is a constituent of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as 'the ICAR'). The petitioner-Institute is a research institute fully CWP No. 10558 of 2001 2 financed by the Central Government. He contends that as the petitioner has no independent existence but it is a constituent of the ICAR, establishment of which, sanction was provided by the Central Government vide order dated 03.10.1989 (Annexure P-3), the reference, if any, could have been made only by the appropriate Government, which would be the Central Government in the present case. He contends that the demand notice was submitted by respondent No. 4-workman to the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Ludhiana. The conciliation proceedings failed and thereafter, the reference was made by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 to the Labour Court, Ludhiana vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2001, which is not permissible in law. He contends that the demand notice should have been submitted by respondent No. 4-workman to the appropriate authority of the Central Government, in case he was aggrieved by any of the actions taken by the petitioner-institute which prejudiced his right of employment. On this basis, he contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 4 vehemently argued that the reference, which has been made vide the impugned order, was in accordance with law as the cause of action had arisen in Punjab and the appropriate authority to make such a reference would be State of Punjab. He contends that no interference in the present writ petition is called for. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner-institute is a constituent of the ICAR which is fully funded by the Central Government, even its formation was through an order passed by the Central Government and, therefore, for all intents and CWP No. 10558 of 2001 3 purposes, it is a Central Government organization. If that be so, the demand notice, if any, by respondent No. 4-workman should have been submitted to the appropriate official of the Central Government. In any case, the reference, which has been made by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 could not have been made in the light of the fact that it was a Central Government organization, for reference of its disputes, authority would only lie with the Central Government as it would be the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2001 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside. It would be open to respondent No. 4-workman, if he so decides, to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 17, 2010 pj CWP No. 10558 of 2001 4