Appropriate Government under industrial law depends on who truly carries on the industry, not contractual control alone.

The meaning of "appropriate Government" under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on whether the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. A company operating its own catering and mineral water business under an exclusive railway-property contract was not treated as a Government-owned or Government-run industry merely because the contract imposed control. The employees were therefore the company's workmen, and the dispute was one between the company and its employees. On that basis, the State Government was competent to refer the industrial dispute, and the reference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the industrial dispute concerning the company's catering and mineral water business was referable by the State Government or only by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis: The expression "appropriate Government" in the Act depends on whether the dispute concerns an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. The business in question was not a Government-owned industry carried on through a department or nominated authority. The company carried on its own business for its own benefit under a contract that gave it an exclusive right to sell on railway property. Government control under the contract did not convert the company's business into one carried on by or under the authority of Government. The employees were therefore the company's workmen, and the dispute was one between the company and its employees. On that footing, the State Government was competent to make the reference under the Act.

Conclusion: The reference by the State Government was valid and the challenge to it failed.

---