Appropriate Government for industrial disputes turns on statutory control, while workmen's claims move into the insolvency process.

Industrial dispute reference turns on whether the undertaking is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, so statutory control and nomination powers, rather than corporate form alone, determine the "appropriate Government"; on that basis, reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal was treated as valid. A shareholder, even with majority control, is a separate legal person and cannot be impleaded in a workmen's dispute absent an employer-employee relationship. After commencement of corporate insolvency and appointment of the interim resolution professional, workmen's claims are to be lodged and examined through the insolvency claims mechanism, not pursued by continuing the tribunal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the industrial dispute concerning the company was referable by the Central Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal as the appropriate Government; and (ii) whether the shareholder could be impleaded or treated as a party to the workmen's dispute, and how the pending claims were to be dealt with after appointment of the interim resolution professional.

Issue (i): Whether the industrial dispute concerning the company was referable by the Central Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal as the appropriate Government.

Analysis: The definition of "appropriate Government" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 turns on whether the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. The statutory constitution of the Rubber Board under the Rubber Act, 1947, the restricted membership and board composition of the company, and the power of the Rubber Board to nominate directors showed that the company functioned as an instrumentality of the Central Government. The Court applied the governing principles from the Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of "appropriate Government" and held that the decisive test is control and authority over the industry, not merely the corporate form of the undertaking.

Conclusion: The reference by the Central Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal was valid and did not call for interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the shareholder could be impleaded or treated as a party to the workmen's dispute, and how the pending claims were to be dealt with after appointment of the interim resolution professional.

Analysis: A shareholder, even if holding the majority shareholding, is distinct from the company and cannot independently be made a party to an industrial dispute in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. In view of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the appointment of the interim resolution professional, the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the applicable regulations required workmen to submit their claims to the interim resolution professional, who was to examine and adjudicate those claims in accordance with law. Continuing the tribunal proceedings would not serve a meaningful purpose in the prevailing insolvency framework.

Conclusion: The shareholder could not be impleaded as a respondent, and the notice was to be construed as against the company; the workmen were directed to pursue their claims before the interim resolution professional.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the governmental reference failed, while the objection to impleading the shareholder succeeded, and the workmen's remedies were shifted to the insolvency claim process.

Ratio Decidendi: For industrial dispute reference purposes, the determining factor is whether the undertaking is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, and a shareholder does not become a separate lis-invocable employer merely by holding controlling shares; where corporate insolvency has commenced, workmen's claims must be pursued through the statutory insolvency claims mechanism.

---