Separate legal personality of Government companies controls appropriate Government and standing orders pendency does not bar industrial dispute reference.

A Government company incorporated under the Companies Act remains a separate legal entity, and total Central Government shareholding, appointment of directors, and extensive control do not by themselves make it an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government for determining the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate Government was therefore the State Government. Pendency of proceedings for modification of standing orders before the certifying authority does not, by itself, bar a reference of the same matters as industrial disputes under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both objections to the reference failed, and the State Government's reference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with the entire share capital held by the Central Government and subject to extensive governmental control, was an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government so that the Central Government, and not the State Government, was the appropriate Government for making a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the pendency of an application for modification of standing orders before the certifying authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, barred a reference of the same matters as industrial disputes under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the Government company was an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government for the purpose of the appropriate Government under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The expression "under the authority of" was construed in its ordinary legal sense as import ing a relationship of principal and agent or an act done pursuant to delegated authority. A company incorporated under the Companies Act has a separate legal existence and carries on its business in its own right through its memorandum and articles of association. The mere fact that the Central Government held the entire share capital, appointed directors, and exercised extensive control through directions did not make the company an agent or instrumentality acting pursuant to the Central Government's authority for this purpose. The definition of employer in section 2(g) also supported the distinction between an industry carried on directly by a Government department and one carried on by a separate corporate entity.

Conclusion: The industry was not carried on under the authority of the Central Government, and the State Government was the appropriate Government; the contention to the contrary failed.

Issue (ii): Whether pendency of proceedings under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, barred a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The question was governed by the earlier decisions holding that the mere pendency of proceedings relating to standing orders does not prevent a valid industrial dispute reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The existence of a pending modification application before the certifying authority did not, by itself, exclude the dispute from the statutory reference mechanism.

Conclusion: The reference was not barred on this ground, and the contention failed.

Final Conclusion: Both challenges to the reference were rejected, and the validity of the State Government's reference was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government company remains a separate legal person and is not, merely because of total governmental shareholding and control, an industry carried on under the authority of the Government for the purpose of determining the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; pendency of standing orders proceedings does not automatically bar a reference of the same dispute under section 10.

---