TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the first respondent establishment was an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government so as to make the Central Government the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, by consequence, exclude the State Government under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971; (ii) whether the applications for cancellation and substitution of recognised union were maintainable under Sections 13 and 14 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
Issue (i): whether the first respondent establishment was an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government so as to make the Central Government the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, by consequence, exclude the State Government under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971
Analysis: The determination depended on the statutory phrase "carried on by or under the authority of" the Central Government. The governing test, as explained in the earlier authorities approved in the Constitution Bench decision, is whether there is legal authority conferred by statute, delegation, or a principal-agent relationship; mere governmental funding, nomination of members, allocation in governmental business rules, or pervasive control is not enough. On the facts, the Centre had been created as a separate society with its own Governing Council, the day-to-day administration and management vested in that Council, and the evidence showed independent functioning without central interference. The property position and the society's statutory framework also pointed to autonomous management rather than conduct as a Central Government undertaking.
Conclusion: The first respondent was not carrying on its industry under the authority of the Central Government, and the State Government remained the appropriate government.
Issue (ii): whether the applications for cancellation and substitution of recognised union were maintainable under Sections 13 and 14 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971
Analysis: Once the State Government was held to be the appropriate government for the establishment, the MRTU and PULP Act applied to the undertaking under Section 2(3). The recognition-related applications under Chapter III were therefore within jurisdiction. The earlier Industrial Court decision had already decided the recognition dispute on merits after considering the membership evidence, and the challenge before the High Court failed only on the jurisdictional question.
Conclusion: The applications were maintainable, and the Industrial Court's decision dismissing the recognition challenge on merits stood restored.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the finding that the Central Government was the appropriate government was rejected, and the Industrial Court's order as affirmed by the Single Judge was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act and allied labour legislation, a government-funded or government-controlled undertaking is an establishment under the authority of the Central Government only when such authority is legally conferred or can be shown from a true principal-agent or delegated relationship; mere supervision, financial support, or nomination power does not suffice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
