# parties has placed order dated 28.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.5955(M/S) of 2019(Gurdeep Singh v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C.Act-1, Lucknow and another) with the

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-08
- **Case number:** Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parties-has-placed-order-dated-28-02-2019-passed-in-writ-petition-no-5955-m-s-44608
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.S.G., Sri Gaurav Saxena, Jushi
Saxena, Sri Lalla Chauhan, Sri Mohd.
Yousuf, Nandita Bharti, Sri Neeraj Kumar
Saxena, Rajni Saxena, Rishi Saxena,
Seena Saxena.

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section
2(a)(2) - petition filed-challenging the order
passed by the Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal,
Lucknow
('CGIT')- declaring the petitioner-Company to
be "Controlled Industry" u/s.2(a)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- unless a
notification of Central Government bringing
2 All. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit Indo Gulf Fertilisers) Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1581
any industry under its control w.r.t. the Act of
1947-is passed-the same cannot be "controlled
industry"-"appropriate Government"-would be
State Government-therefore CGIT has no
jurisdiction- liberty is granted to approach,
either the State Government or the Labour
Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal u/s. 2(A)(2) of
the Act.

Held: - order is set aside

Writ Petition allowed (E-8)

## Text

1580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely to substantiate pleadings with
regard to additional evidence already
permitted to be brought on record by the
appellate court, this Court is of the
opinion
that
the
said
amendment
application should have been allowed by
appellate court.

23. In the aforesaid circumstances,
petition is allowed setting aside order
dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional
District Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow in
Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2014
(Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux
Singh and others). Application No.A-146
in Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2014
is also allowed as a consequence.

24. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties has placed order dated 28.02.2019
passed in Writ Petition No.5955(M/S) of
2019(Gurdeep
Singh
v.
Additional
District Judge/Special Judge, P.C.Act-1,
Lucknow
and
another)
with
the
submission that this Court has already
directed the appellate court to decide
Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2014
with expedition, say, within a period of
six months from the date a certified copy
of order is submitted. Learned counsel for
opposite parties submits that in view of
aforesaid direction, the appeal is required
to be decided in terms of order dated
28.02.2019, although the time frame
indicated in said order has already
expired.

25. Keeping in mind the direction
issued
by
this
Court
earlier
on
28.02.2019, learned court below, i.e.
learned Additional District Judge/Special
Judge, P.C.Act-1, Lucknow is directed to
decide the appeal with expedition in terms
of order dated 28.02.2019, however with
the slight modification that in view of this
order, the appeal shall be decided
preferably within a period of three months
from the date a copy of this order is
brought on record in the appellate
proceedings. Consequential amendment to
memorandum
of
appeal
shall
be
incorporated by the appellant within a
period of seven days from the date a copy
of this order is brought on record before
the court concerned and the proceedings
shall thereafter be completed within the
time frame as indicated herein-above.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1580

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 7515 of 2013

M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit Indo
Gulf Fertilisers) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Md. Altaf Mansoor.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G., Sri Gaurav Saxena, Jushi
Saxena, Sri Lalla Chauhan, Sri Mohd.
Yousuf, Nandita Bharti, Sri Neeraj Kumar
Saxena, Rajni Saxena, Rishi Saxena,
Seena Saxena.

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section
2(a)(2) - petition filed-challenging the order
passed by the Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal,
Lucknow
('CGIT')- declaring the petitioner-Company to
be "Controlled Industry" u/s.2(a)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- unless a
notification of Central Government bringing
2 All. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit Indo Gulf Fertilisers) Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1581
any industry under its control w.r.t. the Act of
1947-is passed-the same cannot be "controlled
industry"-"appropriate Government"-would be
State Government-therefore CGIT has no
jurisdiction- liberty is granted to approach,
either the State Government or the Labour
Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal u/s. 2(A)(2) of
the Act.

Held: - order is set aside

Writ Petition allowed (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri Altaf Mansoor, Sri Lalla
Chauhan for respondent no.3 and Sri
Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
Staterespondent.

2. This petition had initially been
filed by Indo Gulf Fertilizers (A Unit of
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.). However, since
the Unit has been taken over by M/S
Grasim
Industries
Ltd.,
Jagdishpur
Industrial Area, Amethi, an amendment
application was moved, which was
allowed on 30.8.2019 and necessary
amendments with regard to the petitioner
have already been incorporated in the
array of parties, by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.

3. This petition has been filed,
challenging the order dated 23.8.2013
passed by the Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal,
Lucknow (for short 'CGIT'), wherein it
has been declared that the petitionerCompany falls under the purview of
"Controlled Industry" as defined in
Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and, therefore, the CGIT has
jurisdiction to entertain a dispute/petition
filed
by
respondent
no.3
before
respondent no.2.

4. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Altaf
Mansoor
that
respondent
no.3
was
working as Deputy Manager in the Stores
Department of the petitioner-Company,
but his services were terminated on
2.4.2012. A departmental appeal was filed
and thereafter respondent no.3 filed an
application under Section 2-A of the Act
before
the
Regional
Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow in
May, 2012. On the application of
respondent no.3, the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow issued
notice to the petitioner and the petitioner
filed a preliminary objection on the
ground of jurisdiction for initiation of
conciliation proceedings by the Regional
Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Lucknow. The proceedings remained
pending before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow with
regard to the question of jurisdiction. In
the meantime, respondent no.3 filed I.D.
Case no.66 of 2012 before respondent
no.2 on expiry of 45 days from the date of
filing of application before the Regional
Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Lucknow. The respondent no.2 issued
notice to the petitioner on 29.8.2012. The
petitioner again filed its preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the
petition before the CGIT on 15.3.2013.
The affidavits were exchanged in which,
respondent no.3 has stated that the
petitioner-Company
manufactured
fertilizer, which is a commodity that is
under the direct control of Department of
Fertilizers, Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development, Government of India
and such manufacturing of fertilizer is
controlled under the Fertilizer (Control)
1582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Order, 1985 and Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. The availability of raw
material, production both in quantity and
quality, marketing, movement and fixing
of sale price etc. for the petitionerCompany is being controlled by the
Central Government and, therefore, the
claim petition filed by the workman
before the CGIT was maintainable. The
respondent no.2 by the impugned order
dated 23.8.2013 has decided the question
of jurisdiction against the petitioner,
therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. It has been submitted by Sri
Mohd. Altaf Mansoor that a perusal of the
impugned
order
would
show
that
objection was indeed raised, but was
disregarded by the respondent no.2 only
because of reference to the Fertilizer
(Control) Order, 1985, Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and
the
Industries
(Development
and
Regulation) Act, 1951. It has been
submitted
that
the
definition
of
"appropriate Government" is given under
Section 2 of the Act, which provides that
with regard to any industry carried on by
or under the authority of the Central
Government or by a Railway Company or
concerning any such controlled industry
as may be "specified in this behalf" by the
Central Government, the "appropriate
Government" would be the Central
Government. In the case of the petitionerCompany, however, no such notification
has
been
made
by
the
Central
Government under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.

6. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the
basis of the judgments rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Bijay
Cotton Mills Limited vs. Workmen and
another
(1960)
2
SCR
982
and
Management of Vishnu Sugar Mills
Limited, Harkhua District Saran, Bihar
vs. Workmen represented by Chini Mill
Mazdoor
Union,
Harkhua,
District
Saran Bihar (1960) 3 SCR 214, that
merely because under an Act, the
production, supply and sale of a product
of a Company is being controlled and
regulated by the Central Government, it
would not create any presumption that the
"appropriate Government" would be the
Central Government under Section 2(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to Para-12 of the judgment in the
case of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited
(supra) and has read out the same where
almost very same argument was raised
and rejected. Para-12 of the said judgment
is being quoted hereinbelow:

"12. The last contention urged is
that the reference is invalid inasmuch as
the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not
competent to refer the present dispute for
adjudication under Section 10(1) read
with Section 12(5) of the Act. The
argument is that the Textile Industry has
been included at Serial No. 23 in the First
Schedule to the Industrial (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of
1951)
and
as
such
the
Chief
Commissioner of Ajmer was not the
appropriate Government under Section
2(a)(i) of the Act. It is urged that the
present dispute could have been validly
referred for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal only by the Central Government.
Section 2(a)(i) inter alia defines the
appropriate Government as meaning, in
relation
to
any
industrial
dispute
concerning any industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central
Government or by a railway company or
2 All. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit Indo Gulf Fertilisers) Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1583
concerning any such controlled industry
as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central
Government,
the
Central
Government. The question which arises
is: has the textile industry been specified
as controlled industry in this behalf by the
Central Government? It is true that the
textile industry is controlled by the
provisions of Act 65 of 1951 and in that
sense it is controlled industry; but that
would not be enough to attract the
application of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act.
What this latter provision requires is that
the Central Government must specify ?in
this behalf? that the industry in question
is a controlled industry; in other words
the specification must be made by the
Central Government by reference to, and
for the purpose of, the provisions of the
Act in order that the Central Government
may
itself
become
the
appropriate
Government qua such industry under
Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It is conceded
by Mr Sastri that no such specification
has
been
made
by
the
Central
Government. Indeed, we ought to add in
fairness to Mr Sastri that he did not very
seriously press this point."

7. Similarly, in Management of
Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited (supra), the
Supreme Court has referred to the decision of
Bijay Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and
relied upon the same to hold that the sugar
may be a controlled industry under the
Schedule to the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951, but that would not by
its own raise a presumption that the Central
Government
is
the
"appropriate
Government" for the purpose of Section
2(a)(1) of the Act. Paras-4 and 5 of the said
judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:

"4. Two points have been urged
before us on behalf of the appellant. In
the first place it is urged that the
reference was incompetent as sugar was a
controlled industry and only the Central
Government
could
have
made
the
reference and not the State Government.
Secondly, it is urged that the order of the
Tribunal granting an increment of Rs 30
per month to Ramkrishna Prasad was
patently perverse and that there was no
change in the status or emoluments of
Ramkrishna Prasad by the creation of the
new post and the employment of Babulal
Parekh on it.

5. So far as the question of the
competence of the reference is concerned,
we are of opinion that there is no force in
it. A similar question was raised before
this Court in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
Workmen [ CA No. 355 of 1958, decided
on 12-2-1960] and it was held there on
the language of Section 2(a)(i) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that before
that provision could apply to a controlled
industry there must be a notification by
the Central Government for the purposes
of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Section 2(a)(i) is in these
terms-

"Appropriate
Government'
means in relation to any industrial dispute
concerning any industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central
Government or by a railway Company or
concerning any such controlled industry
as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central Government, or in relation to an
industrial dispute concerning a banking
or an insurance company, a mine, an oilfield or a major port, the Central
Government."

The argument is that as sugar is
a controlled industry under the Schedule
to the Industries (Development and
Regulation)
Act,
65
of
1951,
the
appropriate Government for the purposes
1584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Section 2(a)(i) with reference to the
sugar industry is the Central Government.
Reliance
is
placed
on
the
words
?concerning any such controlled industry
as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central
Government?
appearing
in
Section 2 (a)(i). It is true that sugar is a
controlled industry under the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951,
but that in our opinion does not conclude
the matter. In order that the appropriate
government under Section 2(a)(i) may be
the Central Government for a controlled
industry, it is necessary that such
controlled industry should be specified by
the Central Government for the purposes
of Section 2(a)(i). This in our opinion is
obvious
from
the
words
controlled
industry as may be specified in this behalf
by the Central Government? appearing in
Section 2(a)(i). It is not enough that an
industry should be a controlled industry
to attract this provision of Section 2(a)(i);
it is further necessary that it should be
specified in this behalf, namely for the
purposes
of
Section
2(a)(i),
as
a
controlled
industry
by
the
Central
Government,
before
the
Central
Government can become the appropriate
government within the meaning of Section
2(a)(i). We may in this connection refer to
Firebricks and Potteries Ltd., etc. v.
Firebricks and Potteries Ltd. Workers
Union Ltd. [ILR 1955 Mysore 546] where
the same view has been taken. We are of
opinion that that is the correct meaning of
these words appearing in Section 2(a)(i),
as already held in Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd
[ CA No. 355 of 1958, decided on 12-21960] . The objection that the reference
was not competent therefore fails."
(Emphasis Supplied)

8. The phrase "concerning any such
controlled industry as may be specified in
this behalf" by the Central Government
has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court to mean that such an industry, the
control
of
which
by
the
Central
Government has been declared to be
expedient in public interest under any
Central Act. In so far as fertilizer industry
is concerned, the same may be controlled
industry under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or
may be regulated under the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951,
but it has not yet been declared by the
Central Government to be a controlled
industry under the Industrial Disputes Act
and, therefore, the industrial dispute
raised shall not automatically be taken up
by the CGIT for its consideration.

9. The second limb of argument of
Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor is that regarding
the same petitioner, several other disputes
are pending before the Labour Court as
referred by the State Government to it
under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He
has also pointed out from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
no.1 by one Special Secretary, Labour
Department, Government of U.P. that the
petitioner is under the control of the State
Government under Section 2(a)(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not
under
the
control
of
the
Central
Government. The petitioner was never
included in the list of Units, which were
taken under the control of the Central
Government.

10. No doubt, the petitioner-Unit is
registered under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and
the Factories Act, 1948, but the same
registration is with the State Government
and
the
State
Government
is
the
controlling
authority
under
Section
2 All. Som Datt Srivastava Vs Smt. Sobha
1585
2(a)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
Moreover,
several
industrial
disputes
relating
to
the
petitionerCompany are pending before the Labour
Court and Industrial Tribunal of the State
Government.

11. Learned counsel for respondent
no.3 Sri Lalla Chauhan, on the other hand,
has argued on the same lines as have been
considered and relied upon by the
respondent no.2 in passing the order dated
23.8.2013. He has argued that the
definition of "appropriate Government" in
relation
to
any
industrial
dispute
concerning any such controlled industry,
as specified in this behalf, by the Central
Government, may be read along with
Section 2 of the Industries (Development
and
Regulation)
Act,
1951.
Under
Schedule 1 of the Act of 1951, fertilizers
are mentioned at Item no.18. Hence, for
an industry, manufacturing fertilizers, the
"appropriate Government" is the Central
Government. The Fertilizer (Control)
Order has also been issued by the
Government
of
India,
Ministry
of
Agriculture and Rural Development. The
control of the Central Government over
the production and supply of fertilizers
would make the Fertilizer Industry a
controlled
industry
and,
therefore,
amenable to the jurisdiction of CGIT.

12. Very much the same argument
was raised before the Supreme Court in
the cases of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited
(supra) and Management of Vishnu
Sugar
Mills
Limited
(supra).
The
Supreme
Court
has
rejected
such
argument and observed that unless there is
a notification of the Central Government
with regard to bringing any industry under
its control with respect to Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the same cannot be
said to be a controlled industry under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The "appropriate
Government" would, therefore, not be the
Central Government, but only the State
Government.

13. Since in this case, the respondent
no.3 had approached the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow initially
and while conciliation proceedings remained
pending, he also approached the CGIT
directly under the enabling provisions of
Section 2(A)(2) of the Act of 1947, the order
passed by the respondent no.2 dated
23.8.2013 while it is being set aside by this
Court, liberty is granted to the respondent no.3
to approach, either the State Government or
the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal
directly by filing a claim petition before it
under the enabling provisions of Section
2(A)(2) of the Act. If such a petition is filed,
the same shall not be rejected only on the
ground of delay and shall be considered on
merits, by the appropriate Court.

14. The writ petition stands allowed
to the aforesaid extent.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1585

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Misc. Single No. 2761 of 2014

Som Datt Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sobha ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava.