Case: National Institute of Industrial Engineering Vs. Nitie Employees' Union &amp; Others

approval of the Central Government. iv. The annual statement of accounts and balance sheet are required to be in such form as prescribed by the Central Government. v. The Central Government is empowered to take over the administration and assets of the Petitioner if it is satisfied that the Petitioner is not functioning properly. vi. Upon winding up or dissolution of the Petitioner, the property of the Petitioner is to be dealt with in such a manner as may be determined by the Central Government. vii. The Central Government sanctions and sets the limits of the expenditure after the annual budget estimates are prepared by the Board of the Petitioner viii. The Central Government prescribes the rules and regulations for the admission of the students to the various courses of study in the Petitioner Institute. ix. The posts created are required to be in the cadre and scales of pay as approved by the Central Government. The adoption of pay scales, allowances and revision thereof and creation of posts, if the pay scale exceeds Rs. 4,500/- requires the prior approval of the Central Government. It is not disputed that the pay scales of the Petitioners employees are at par with the employees of the Central Government. x. Prior approval of the Central Government is necessary to amend or vary the Bye-laws/Rules for regulating the management and administration of affairs of the Petitioner. xi. Additional functions and duties as may be directed by the Central Government are required to be carried out by the Board of the Petitioner. xii. In case of any disagreement between the representative of the Ministry of Finance and the Chairman of the Board (who is also appointed by the Central Government) on any financial matter beyond the delegated powers of the Ministry, the matter is required to be referred to the Ministry for taking a final decision. xiii. A copy of the proceedings of every meeting of the Board is required to be furnished to the Central Government. xiv. The members of the Petitioner or Board or any Committee appointed by the Petitioner or the Board are not entitled to any remuneration from the Petitioner or the Board and are only entitled to travelling and daily allowance for the meetings undertaken by them which is borne by the Central Government. Only non-official members of the Petitioner, the Board or the Committee appointed by the Board are to be paid by the Petitioner for travelling and daily allowances for the meetings. xv. The accounts of the Petitioner are audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or any person authorized by him and a copy of the Audit Report is also required to be furnished by the Auditor to the Government of India in the Ministry of Education. xvi. The Board is required to submit an annual Report on the working of the Petitioner including audit Report and audited statement of accounts and submit the budget estimates for every financial year by such date as fixed by the Central Government. 10. In view of what is stated above, we find that the affairs of the Petitioner are completely controlled by the Central Government. The nature and degree of control the Central Government exercises on the Petitioner leaves no manner of doubt that it is being carried on under the authority of the Central Government. The Petitioner Institute is being run as a delegate of the Central Government. If the Central Government does not appoint/nominate the members of the Board of Governors, which is the governing body in charge of administration and management of the Petitioner, we are unable to really see how the Petitioner would function. It also needs to be borne in mind that the Director and the Registrar of the Petitioner Institute are ex-officio members. In the impugned order of the Industrial Court, however, there is hardly any discussion on Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Petitioner. In our view, the Industrial Court clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appropriate Government in relation to the Petitioner was the State Government. Analysis of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel is not really necessitated, in view of the decision of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SAILs case which interalia holds that the question whether the undertaking is being carried on under the authority of the Central Government is to be ascertained on the facts and circumstances of each case. It may however be stated that in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union 1997 (7) SCC 59 (supra), which is the only judgment relied upon subsequent to SAILs case, it was observed in paragraph 79 as follows: 79. It is material to note that until the present litigation, neither the Central Government nor Dorabji Tata Trust or even the Governing Council of the first respondent ever disputed the application of the MRTU Act to the first respondent establishment. Prior to the applications leading to the present appeal, Respondent 1 has also filed complaints under the MRTU Act. Neither the appellant nor the second respondent rival Union ever disputed the application of the Act. In fact, the first respondent has in a way, by its own conduct acquiesced into the application of the Act, and the appellant Union has been recognised under the Act right from 1985. 11. Though not relevant for the purposes of the present Petition, it is required to be noted that with effect from 15 September 2010 autonomous bodies owned and controlled by the Central Government are also included in the definition of section 2(a)(i) and for which the appropriate Government is a Central Government in relation to an industrial dispute. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Petitioner. Consequently, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act would not apply and the Application of the Respondent No.1-Union would not be maintainable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. In view of what is stated above, we find that the affairs of the Petitioner are completely controlled by the Central Government. The nature and degree of control the Central Government exercises on the Petitioner leaves no manner of doubt that it is being carried on under the authority of the Central Government. The Petitioner Institute is being run as a delegate of the Central Government. If the Central Government does not appoint/nominate the members of the Board of Governors, which is the governing body in charge of administration and management of the Petitioner, we are unable to really see how the Petitioner would function. It also needs to be borne in mind that the Director and the Registrar of the Petitioner Institute are ex-officio members. In the impugned order of the Industrial Court, however, there is hardly any discussion on Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Petitioner. In our view, the Industrial Court clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appropriate Government in relation to the Petitioner was the State Government. Analysis of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel is not really necessitated, in view of the decision of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SAILs case which interalia holds that the question whether the undertaking is being carried on under the authority of the Central Government is to be ascertained on the facts and circumstances of each case. It may however be stated that in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union 1997 (7) SCC 59 (supra), which is the only judgment relied upon subsequent to SAILs case, it was observed in paragraph 79 as follows:79. It is material to note that until the present litigation, neither the Central Government nor Dorabji Tata Trust or even the Governing Council of the first respondent ever disputed the application of the MRTU Act to the first respondent establishment. Prior to the applications leading to the present appeal, Respondent 1 has also filed complaints under the MRTU Act. Neither the appellant nor the second respondent rival Union ever disputed the application of the Act. In fact, the first respondent has in a way, by its own conduct acquiesced into the application of the Act, and the appellant Union has been recognised under the Act right from 198511. Though not relevant for the purposes of the present Petition, it is required to be noted that with effect from 15 September 2010 autonomous bodies owned and controlled by the Central Government are also included in the definition of section 2(a)(i) and for which the appropriate Government is a Central Government in relation to an industrial dispute12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Petitioner. Consequently, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act would not apply and the Application of the Respondent No.1-Union would not be maintainable.