Case: Nashik Workers Union Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

the appellant, Nashik Workers Union, filed a complaint under the 1971 Act being Complaint (ULP) No. 35 of 1990 for reinstatement of the trainees with continuity of services and back wages. During the pendency of the first complaint, as further employees were relieved, another complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 36 of 1990 was filed. With the passage of time, two other complaints forming the subject matter of Complaint (ULP) Nos. 44 of 1990 and 45 of 1990 also came to be registered before the Presiding Officer-Judge, Labour Court, Nasik. The Labour Court appreciated the material brought on record, declared that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices in terminating the services of the employees and, accordingly, directed for reinstatement of the employees with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The said order was to be complied with within one month from the date of the order, that is, 08.08.19943. The aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court came to be assailed in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 140 of 1994 and 28-30 of 1995 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane affirmed the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the revision applications vide order dated 8th July, 19974. The orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court were assailed in Writ Petition No. 3562 of 1997 wherein a contention was raised that the appropriate Government in respect of the dispute was the Central Government and not the State Government and, therefore, the 1971 Act would not apply and consequently, the complaints filed by the workers union deserved to be dismissed. The learned single Judge appreciating the materials brought on record allowed the Writ Petition and directed the employer to make an offer to some trainees as and when regular vacancies arise for consideration and in the event they fulfil the required qualification then to consider them for regular job5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the employer by preferring an intra-court appeal. Though the learned single Judge had set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as of the Industrial Court, yet he had not accepted the contention of the employer that in relation to it the appropriate Government is the Central Government and, therefore, complaint under the 1971 Act was not maintainable. It was contended by the appellant before the Division Bench that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to the employer company and not the State Government and to bolster the said submission reliance was placed on Steel Authority of India and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, 2001(4) S.C.T. 1 : (2001) 7 SCC 1 and also on Hindustan Aeronautics Limited & another v. Hindustan Aeronautical Canteen Kamgar Sangh & others, (2007) 15 SCC 51 ,  (HAL 2). That apart, inspiration was also drawn from the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2008 dated 04.12.20086. The Division Bench relying on the aforesaid decisions opined that the appropriate Government for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act) is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government in relation to the company and, accordingly, the complaints filed by the Union against the company were not maintainable. Being of this view, it allowed Appeal No. 84 of 2006 and set aside the finding recorded by the learned single Judge. Be it noted, as the High Court arrived at the said conclusion in Appeal No. 84 of 2006, it opined that the other appeal being Appeal No. 144 of 2002 did not merit any consideration. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of scrutiny in these appeals

Reasoning:
26. In the case at hand, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision in HAL 2 (supra) can be regarded as a binding precedent. As is noticeable, HAL 2 (supra) has not taken note of earlier decision in HAL 1 (supra). It has been clearly held in HAL 1 (supra) that regard being had to the dictionary clause of the ID Act for the purpose of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is the State Government which has to make the reference. In HAL 2 (supra) the Court has referred to decision in SAILs case and opined that it is undisputed that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an undertaking of the Central Government and it is the Central Government which exercises full control over the same and, therefore, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. This analysis runs counter to HAL 1 (supra) and as well the ratio of the decision in SAILs case. On the contrary there is no discussion either on the facts or the law. It has been opined that the facts are undisputed. In HAL 1 (supra), the three-Judge Bench had referred to the decision in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra). As has been held in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union (supra), the authority in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) has been approved in SAIL (supra) with some divergence. The authority in SAILs case, as the conclusion would show, covers two situations - the unamended provision and the amended provision. It does not disturb the principles stated in HAL 1 (supra). Thus, two aspects, first, the HAL 2 (supra) does not take note of HAL 1 (supra) and second, it proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts which are not stated. It is to be noted that there is nothing in the order in HAL 2 (supra) to suggest that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an agent of the Central Government. In our considered opinion, as HAL 2 (supra) has not noticed HAL 1 (supra) which has been approved in SAILs case, it cannot be considered as a binding precedent. Therefore, we hold that HAL 1 (supra) still holds good and lays down the correct law and we are bound by it as its foundation flows from Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) which has been approved in SAIL (supra) with some divergence as has been stated in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union (supra). Be it stated, that divergence really does not affect the approval. We have no hesitation in our mind that HAL 2 (supra) cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. Ergo, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court has not applied the ratio in SAILs case correctly and, therefore, the entire anlaysis has to be held to be fallacious27. The controversy does not end there. It is perceptible that the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the case and dismissed L.P.A. No. 144 of 2002 on the ground that it did not survive after dismissal of L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006. As we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the appropriate Government in relation to the respondent company is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits