Judgment:
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition is at the instance of a company registered under the Companies Act, carrying on business in the name and style of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (for short BALCO), a Government of India enterprise. The Gandhamardan Bauxite Project at Paikmal in the district of Bargarh is a unit of BALCO. The petitioner challenges the award dated December 26, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 1 of 1988(Central) published in the Gazette of India dated February 25, 1995, copy whereof is Annexure-1.
2. By the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal has ultimately concluded to the effect that termination of services of the workman, opposite party No. 2 is an act of illegal retrenchment and it is not justified for which the workman is entitled to back wages for the entire period from the date of retrenchment till the date the matter relating to retrenchment is lawfully regularised or until he is provided with a service in any other project of BALCO.
3. It transpires from the materials on recordthat the Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred uponthem by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and subsection (2A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputefor adjudication by the Tribunal:
'Whether the action of the management of Gandhamardan Bauxite Project of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., at-Paikmal, District Sambalpur in terminating the service of Sri Narahari Behera, Mazdoor with effect from December 26, 1985 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?'
Relating to the said reference the workman filed his statement of claim disclosing, inter alia, that he was engaged as a Mazdoor against a substantive vacancy with effect from February 7, 1984 and he continuously worked till December 16, 1985 when his service was terminated.
4. In the written statement filed by the Management, it was admitted that the workman was engaged on February 7, 1984, but it was contended that the engagement was of casual type and on daily wage basis, and such engagement was made intermittently. The following issues were framed:
' 1. Whether the termination of the second party workman is justified? and
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?'
5. The Tribunal had considered the evidence and by recording reasons held that the termination was bad in law and the workman was entitled to the reliefs as indicated in the award itself. Being aggrieved by the impugned award the management has filed the present writ application.
6. It is mainly argued before us that the reference itself was bad in law. The Central Government is not the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to make any reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended that the Bharat Aluminium Company is a company registered under the Companies Act. Law recognises it as a juristic person separate and distinct from its members. It being a commercial company, acts on its own behalf and is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and as such the Central Government is not the appropriate Government to make the reference as was done in this case. Reference has been made to Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar (1969-II-LLJ-548) (SC) and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1) UP. Allahahad and Ors. 1996(63) FLR391. It is further urged that since no mining operation was involved in the job of the petitioner as per the definition of 'mine' Under Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, the reference was not proper. Moreover, survey work which the workman was doing as a Chairman is neither related to mining operation nor an activity as defined under Section 2(1)(j) (i) to (xi) of the Mines Act. The entire reference being bad in law, the exercise made by the Tribunal in passing the award cannot be sustained.
7. The learned lawyer appearing for the workman has however taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record. He has mainly relied upon the definition of 'appropriate Government' and developed his submission that appropriate Government in the present case is the Central Government and not the State Government.
8. By appreciating the submissions of the learned lawyers of respective parties, we find that the present writ petition has been filed by the Management of Gandhamardan Bauxite Project of BALCO at Paikmal in the district of Sambalpur (at the relevant time). It is not in doubt or dispute that the entire project related to mining operation. From the definition of 'mine' we find that incidental work of survey is related to mining operation. The workman was engaged in such work. The law is very clear that regarding mining operation, the Central Government is the appropriate authority. Certain case laws have been cited to indicate, inter alia, that the persons engaged in a State not directly engaged in the mining operation cannot ask the Central Government to refer the dispute and in that case 'appropriate Government' should be the State Government. In particular, our attention has been drawn to Radha Shyam Bagaria v. Union of India and Ors. 1980 (40) FLR 1. Our attention is also drawn to Binny Limited v. Their Workmen and Ors., (1972-I-LLJ-478) (SC), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. The Workmen and Ors. (1975-II-LLJ-336) (SC) and Shri Yovan India Cements Employees Union and another v. Management of India Cements Ltd and Ors. (1994-I-LLJ-920) (SC). The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is not in doubt or dispute.
9. Upon appreciation of the facts in the instant case, we find that the management had engaged the workman solely in mining operation. The workman was engaged in survey work leading to the said mining operation and was engaged in the project. The Central Government was the appropriate Government as envisaged under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference itself did not suffer from any irregularities and/or illegalities. This issue as to the legality, validity and propriety of the reference being made by the Central Government is decided against the management. The other reasons given by the Tribunal are seriously assailed. Be that as it may, we do not find anything wrong in the conclusion made by the Tribunal in holding that the workman was not lawfully terminated. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the management challenging the impugned award.
The writ application fails and hence is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.