Cement Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2005 Latest Caselaw 379 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

2. The sole question which arises in these writ petitions is as to who is the appropriate Government qua Cement Corporation of India which has been described in all these writ petitions as a Government Enterprise and has challenged a reference made by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the `ID Act') on the ground that the State Government is not the appropriate Government as per the definition of the `appropriate Government' under Section 2 of the ID Act.

3. Mr. Arun Birbal, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner Corporation in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4792/1989 & 5318/1997 has pointed out the definition of an appropriate Government with particular stress on the petitioner Corporation being a controlled industry as has been specified on behalf of the Central Government by Notification dated 8th November, 1977 issued under Section 2 of the ID Act which the petitioner is and this factor has not been disputed by Shri M.Y. Khan, the learned counsel, appearing in all the writ petitions for the respondent No.3/workman. Accordingly there would be no dispute that on a bare reading of the Section 2 of the ID Act, the appropriate Government would be the Central Government. It, however, appears that on 8th December, 1977, a notification has been issued under the powers conferred under Section 39 of the ID Act. The Section 39 of the ID Act reads as follows:-

"39. Delegation of powers.__The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, directed that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made there under shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also,__

(a) where the appropriate Government is the Central Government by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or by the State Government, or by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, as may be specified in the notification; and

(b) where the appropriate Government is a State Government, by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.]"

The aforesaid Section provides for delegation of powers in the present cases upon the Central Government. The notification dated 8th December, 1977 reads as follows:-

"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR) MINISTRY OF LABOUR/ SHRAM MANTRALAYA

Dated New Delhi, the 8th December, 1977

NOTIFICATION

S.O. 826(E) "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby directs that all the powers exercisable by it under that Act and the rules made there under shall, in relation of the Cement Industry be exercised also by all the State Governments, subject to the condition that the Central Government shall continue to exercise all the powers under the said Act and Rules made there under.

(i) relating to mines and quarries even where such mines and quarries form part of the Cement Industry; and

(ii) relating to the dispute between the employers who are members of the Cement Manufacturers Association, Express Building, Church Gate, Bombay and their workmen represented by Indian National Cement and Allied Workers' Federation, Mazdoor Karyalaya, Congress House, Bombay, which has been referred for arbitration in pursuance of Section 10 of the said Act, read with Notification No.S.O.757 (E) dated November 8, 1977 [No.S.11025/9/77/DI(A)], in terms of the arbitration agreement published by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour Order No.1.29013/2/77-D.O.III (B), dated November 28, 1977.

Sd/- Dt. 8.12.77 D.Bandyopadhyay, Jt. Secy.

No.S.11025/9/77/DI(A)"

Thus it is clear from a perusal of the above notification that the said notification issued by the Central Government specifies that all powers relating to the dispute between the members of the Cement Manufacturers Association, Bombay and Allied Workers' Federation, Bombay shall also be exercised by the State Governments.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Birbal has contended that this power could not be sub-delegated by the State Government to a Secretary (Labour) and ought to have been exercised by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notification dated 8th December, 1977 does not delegate the powers as per the grounds requisite in Section 39 of the ID Act. This argument though attractive at the first blush, cannot be sustained as a notification had been issued on 14th April, 1975 by the Government of India which reads as follows:-

"Part-II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii) New Delhi, the 14th April, 1975

S.C.1340 "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers of the State Government in regard to the Union Territory of Delhi exercisable by it under Section 3, 10 and 10, sub-section (5) of Section 12 and Sections 17, 33 and 36 of the said Act be exercisable also by the Secretary (Labour) of the Delhi Administration.

(No.S-11011/2/75-DK(IA) S.S SAHASRANAMAN, Under Secy.

The aforesaid notification clearly delegates the powers to the State Government(s) in respect of Union Territory of Delhi exercisable under Section 3, 10 and 10, sub-section (5) of Section 12 and Sections 17, 33 and 36 of the ID Act to be exercisable also by the Secretary Labour of the Delhi Administration.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this notification dated 14th April, 1975 was an earlier notification and could not ensure the benefit of the notification issued on 8th December, 1977. In my view, this will be a hyper-technical plea. The powers in favor of the Labour Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi already existed as per the notification issued by the Central Government dated 14th April, 1975 thereby delegating the powers of reference in respect of all the Cement Industries and the notification dated 8th December, 1977 was also extended to the State Government. A bare reading of the Notification dated 8th December, 1977 disclosed that this power was exercisable by the State Government also. The mere fact that the 1977 Notification did not mention the Labour Secretary of the Delhi Government is of no substance because such a power in favor of the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Government already existed by virtue of the Notification dated 14th April, 1975 issued by the Central Government.

6. Another plea was raised by the learned counsel, appearing in WP (C) No.5794/99 for the petitioner, Shri Sanjiv Ralli that the reading of the notification dated 8th December, 1977 clearly discloses that only the disputes relating to mines and quarries forming part of the Cement Industry as specified in Clause (i) of the said notification dated 8th December, 1977 and disputes relating to the employees, who are the members of the Cement Manufcturers Association, Express Building, Bombay and their workmen through Indian National Cement and Allied Workers' Federation, Mazdoor Karyalaya, Bombay could be referred both by the State Government and Central Government. The Notification dated 8th December, 1977 shows the un-sustainability of the aforesaid plea of the petitioner's counsel. The main part of the notification clearly states that the powers in respect of Cement Industry shall be exercised by the State Governments as well as the Central Government except two specified disputes relating to mines and quarries, forming part of the Cement Industry for which the Central Government shall continue to exercise powers. This is a reservation in favor of the Central Government in respect of the two disputes referred thereto. It cannot be construed to limiting the current powers exercisable by the Central Government and State Governments.

7. Accordingly the petitioner's pleas as to the appropriate Government are without any merit and are consequently rejected. The writ petition will now be considered for formal disposal.

8. List the matter on 6th April, 2005.