Case: Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai Vs. Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana &amp; Others

Application (MRTU) No.15 of 1994 was filed by Tata Memorial Kamgar Sanghatana which is a registered trade union for its recognition as majority trade union on the establishment of the appellants. The other application viz. application (MRTU) No.16 of 1994 was filed for cancellation of the recognition. The principal question to be decided in that application was whether the application filed for recognition under the MRTU and PULP Act was maintainable under that Act. It was the contention of the appellants that the State Government cannot be said to be appropriate Government and therefore, the application is not maintainable under the said Act.3 of section 2 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the Act apply to all industries to which Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 applies provided the State Government is appropriate Government in relation to those industries. In other words, an industry in relation to which State Government is not an appropriate Government, the provisions of the Act do not apply. Therefore, the issue that arose for consideration was whether in relation to the appellants, the State Government can be said to be appropriate Government or the Central Government can be said to be the appropriate Government. That issue was decided by the order of the Industrial Court dated 29th June 2001. The Industrial Court held that the Central Government cannot be said to be appropriate Government in relation to the appellants, the State Government is appropriate Government and therefore, the application is maintainable. Writ petition was filed by the appellants against that order before this Court which was registered as writ petition No.2148 of 2001. That writ petition was dismissed by order dated 29th October 2001 and the finding of the Industrial Court referred to above was endorsed by this Court. The present challenge is to both the order, one passed by the Industrial Court and the other passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in relation to the appellants, the appropriate Government is Government of India or the State Government. The appellants are a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 and is also a Society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It manages the Tata Memorial Hospital which is a Cancer Research Institute of its own kind in the country. According to the appellants, the land and the building where the institution is run vests in the Government of India. The management of the institution also vests in Government of India. According to the appellants, the appellants have been formed to manage the institution and the Government of India has delegated its function of managing the institution to the appellants and therefore, it is the Central Government which is appropriate Government in relation to the appellants. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the Central Government cannot be said to be appropriate Government in relation to the appellants because the appellants are autonomous body, in the management of the institution and it does not work under the control of the Central Government.

Court's reasoning:
From the observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that if an industry is being run because of delegation of power by the Central Government, then in relation to that industry, the Central Government becomes appropriate Government. So far as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for respondents in the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) is concerned, that judgment has been considered by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd.s case in paragraph 41 and therefore, since the judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. is a subsequent judgment and delivered by a larger Bench, we will have to go by that judgment. Now, in order to answer the question that falls for consideration in this case what is to be seen is whether it can be said that the appellants are managing the Institution as delegates of the Central Government or not. In our opinion, paragraph 6 from the agreement dated 6th January 1966 is relevant. It reads thusAND WHEREAS the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust being desirous of dedicating this Hospital to the Nation with all its assets including the Cancer Infirmary Fund and the three plots Nos.107, 108 and 109 of Scheme No.60, Naigaum Estate, requested the Government of India to take over the control and management of the said Hospital with effect from the First Day of April One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Seven and the Government of India agreed to do so and to manage the same at their own expense as from the said date onwards upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement made on the Fourth Day of February One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Seven (hereinafter called the Hospital Agreement)."Perusal of the above paragraph makes it clear that the entire property where the Institution is being run vested in the Trust by name Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and it was that Trust which was managing the Institution. The said Trust decided to request the Government of India to take over the control and management of the Hospital and the Government of India agreed to do so and also agreed to manage the Institution at their own expenses and therefore, by virtue of this agreement, the property of the Trust stands transferred to the Government of India. This position also becomes clear from the decree passed by this Court in suit No.568 of 1957. That suit was filed for framing scheme under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. The relevant portion of that decree reads thusTHIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that the properties to be conveyed, transferred and assigned by the Trustees to the Government of India being the immovable properties particularly described in Schedule B hereto be and they are hereby vested in the Government ofrelevant part of the scheme, which was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court, reads thusTrustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust shall hand over to the Government of India and the Government of India shall take over the control and management of the Tata Memorial Hospital and shall manage the same at their own expenses as and from 1st Aprilthe scheme provides that for the purpose of management of the Institution, a Governing Board shall be constituted. It is thus clear that because of the agreement and consequent scheme sanctioned by this Court, the entire property and the management of the Institution vested in the Central Government. Along with the property, the duty to manage the Institution also vested in the Central Government. The Central Government retained the control over the property itself but decided to delegate its power to manage the Institution to a body constituted as per the scheme. It is thus clear that the Governing Board constituted under the scheme which is managing the Institution is doing it as a delegate of the Central Government. It is clear from the Rules and Regulations that though there is a provision in the Rules and Regulations for the transfer of property at the discretion of the Government, the property has not been transferred by the Government and it vests in the Central Government. In view of the agreement entered into between the Trust and the Government of India, duty to manage the Institution was of the Central Government and that power and duty has been delegated by the Central Government to the Governing body which is the appellants and therefore, in our opinion, the appellants are managing the Institution as delegates of the Central Government and therefore, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., it is the Central Government which is appropriate Government in relation to the appellants.