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

1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 28-06-2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. By that order, the Application (MRTU) No.5/2000 filed by the Respondent No.1-Union for registration as a recognized union under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act) came to be allowed and the Respondent No.1-Union was permitted to function as recognized union with the Petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court held that the `appropriate Government in relation to the Petitioner is the State Government and therefore the Application of the Respondent No.1-Union was maintainable.

Court's reasoning:
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.