TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur Tribunal. The petitioners assailed the award essentially on three grounds: I. The petitioners were not an industry. II. There existed no relationship of an employee and an employer between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners. III. The State Government was not the competent authority to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal when the petitioners were a body which found their existence on account of a central enactment of the Parliament. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the first instance, before it was seen as to whether the petitioners were an industry or whether there existed a relationship of an employer and an employee between the petitioners and the respondent no. 3, the question as to whether the State Government was authorized to refer the matter to the Labour Tribunal or whether it was the Central Government which ought to have made the reference had to be seen. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were an autonomous body which came into existence on account of the Act No. 38 of 1949 enacted by the Parliament of India, and, therefore, the appropriate Government as per sub section 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 of 2009), as the case may be;] [(ec) "partnership" means - (A) a partnership as defined in section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932); or (B) a limited liability partnership which has no company as its partner;] (f) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under this Act; (g) "Register" means the Register of members maintained under this Act; (h) "Registered accountant" means any person who has been enrolled on the Register of Accountants maintained by the Central Government under the Auditor's Certificates Rules, 1932; [(ha) "specified" means specified by rules made by the Central Government under this Act;] [(haa) ''sole proprietorship" means an individual who engages himself in the practice of accountancy or offers to perform services referred to in clauses (ii) to (iv) of sub-section (2);] [(hb) "Tribunal" means a Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 10B;] (i) "year" means the period commencing on the 1st day of April of any year and ending on the 31st day of March of the succeeding year. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), or an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil field, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, any company in which not less than 50-1 per cent. of the paid - up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, establish by under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principle undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and; Therefore referring to the Act No. 38 of 1949 and the Section 2(a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were an autonomous body controlled by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Government alone was the proper authority which could have referred the matter to the Tribunal for an adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgement reported in 2013 (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations and once when an award was passed this Court should not interfere with it. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 relied upon 2015 (4) SCC 270 (Pepsico India Holding Private Limited vs. Krishna Kant Pandey) and further submitted that findings of fact should not be interfered with and the writ petition should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 also submitted that the Labour Tribunal was functioning under a referral jurisdiction. It had not to decide as to whether the reference was good or bad. It had no other option but to decide the reference and, therefore no fault could be found with the award. Learned counsel for the respondents still further submitted that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the reference then they should have challenged the reference at the very initial stage by filing a writ petition. This having not been done they cannot now turn around and say that the reference was bad. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that definitely the petitioners were an Industry and they were carrying such activities which could be scrutinized by an Industrial Tribunal. Further, learned counsel for the respondents submitte....