COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR), vs STATE OF KARNATAKA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
R
WP No. 24369 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
th
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 36218 OF 2024 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24209 OF 2025 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24369 OF 2025 (L-RES)
IN WP No. 36218/2024
BETWEEN:
1. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH (CSIR)
ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN
2 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG
NEW DELHI-110001
REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL.
2. CSIR-NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES
KODIHALLI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560017
REP. BY ITS CONTROLLER
OF ADMINISTRATION.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
REGION II, KARMIKA BHAVAN
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560029.
- 2 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
2. DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER (DO6)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
REP. BY IS DEPUTY CENTRAL LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
RD
SHRAM SADAN, 3 MAIN
RD
3 CROSS, II PHASE
YESWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560022.
4. WORKMEN OF NATIONAL
AEROSPACE LABORATORIES
REP. BY KARNATAKA GENERAL LABOUR UNION ®
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.16/7, MUNI KADIRAPPA LAYOUT
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD
HOODY, BENGALURU-560048
ST
ALSO AT : NO.19, 1 FLOOR
BHARAT BHAVAN, NO.35
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2:
SRI. K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG FOR R3:
SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4:
SRI. MURALIDHAR, AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED: 02.03.2024 BEARING NO. LD-IDM/115/2024
/LD.DO.6.LS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
- 3 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
IN WP NO. 24209/2025
BETWEEN:
1. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR)
ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN
2 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG
NEW DELHI-110001
REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL.
2. CSIR-NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES
KODIHALLI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560017
REP. BY ITS CONTROLLER
OF ADMINISTRATION
[REGISTERED UNDER SEC.7 OF THE
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND
ABOLITION) ACT, 1970].
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
REGION II, KARMIKA BHAVAN
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560029.
2. DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER (DO6)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY CENTRAL LABOUR
- 4 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
RD
SHRAM SADAN, 3 MAIN
RD
3 CROSS, II PHASE, YESWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560022.
4. ENGINEERING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
GHATE BHAVAN, VYALIKAVAL
GAYATRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560003
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
[REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2:
SRI. K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG, FOR R3:
SRI. V. R. DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED: 07.10.2024 BEARING NO. LD-
IDM/546/2024/LD.DO.6.LS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 24369/2025
BETWEEN:
1. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR)
ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN
2 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG
NEW DELHI-110001
REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL.
2. CSIR-NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES
KODIHALLI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560017
REP. BY ITS CONTROLLER
OF ADMINISTRATION
[REGISTERED UNDER SEC.7 OF THE
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND
ABOLITION) ACT, 1970].
- 5 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
REGION II, KARMIKA BHAVAN
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560029.
2. DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER (DO6)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
REP. BY IS DEPUTY CENTRAL LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
RD
SHRAM SADAN, 3 MAIN
RD
3 CROSS, II PHASE, YESWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560022.
4. WORKMEN OF NATIONAL
AEROSPACE LABORATORIES
REP. BY KARNATAKA GENERAL LABOUR UNION ®
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.16/7, MUNI KADIRAPPA LAYOUT
GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD
HOODY, BENGALURU-560048
ST
ALSO AT : NO.19, 1 FLOOR
BHARAT BHAVAN, NO.35
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
[REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926].
...RESPONDENTS
- 6 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(BY SRI.M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2:
SRI. K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG FOR R3:
SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4:)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 02.03.2024 BEARING NO. LD-IDM/116/2024/LD
DO.6.LS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CAV ORDER
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders
dated 02.03.2024 and 07.10.2024, respectively, passed by
the second respondent under Section 10(1)(c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ‘I.D. Act’),
vide Annexures-A.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.2
is a constituent laboratory of petitioner No.1, which is an
autonomous body under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.
Petitioner No.1 is registered under the Societies
- 7 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Registration Act, 1860. Respondent No.4 – Labour Union
raised industrial disputes on 13.09.2023, 15.09.2023 and
06.11.2023, respectively, before respondent Nos.1 and 2,
seeking reinstatement of the workers represented by the
Union and recognition of their status as permanent
workmen. Accordingly, the second respondent issued
notices dated 13.09.2023, 10.11.2023 and 30.09.2023 to
the petitioners, calling upon them to appear on
15.09.2023, 20.11.2023 and 09.10.2023, respectively, as
per Annexures-E1. Pursuant to the said notices, the
petitioners appeared and filed statement of objections
raising a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the dispute before the State
Government. Thereafter, by the impugned orders, the
second respondent referred the dispute to the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru, vide respective
Annexures-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
3. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Anoop Haranahalli, learned
- 8 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
counsel for the petitioners, raised the following
contentions:
(i) Firstly, the impugned orders at Annexures-A,
passed by the second respondent under Section 10(1) of
the I.D. Act, are without jurisdiction, as the Central
Government is the ‘appropriate Government’. Since
petitioner No.1 is an autonomous body controlled by the
Central Government, the orders passed by the State
Government are contrary to Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
(ii) Secondly, he would submit that the definition of
‘appropriate Government’ under Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D.
Act was amended with effect from 15.09.2010. Pursuant
to the said amendment, in respect of an autonomous body
owned or controlled by the Central Government, the
Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’.
(iii) Thirdly, under the unamended definition, prior to
15.09.2010, the Central Government was the ‘appropriate
Government’ only in respect of an industry carried on by
or under the authority of the Central Government.
- 9 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
However, under the amended definition, it is no longer
necessary for the petitioners to establish that the
establishment functions by or under the authority of the
Central Government.
(iv) Fourthly, the object of the amendment to Section
2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act was to enlarge the scope of matters
falling within the sphere of Central Government. The
intention of the Legislature was to broaden the definition
of ‘appropriate Government’ under the unamended
provision, as entities not carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government fell within the
residuary sub-clause (ii). Therefore, in view of the
amendment, in respect of an autonomous body owned or
controlled by the Central Government, the Central
Government is the ‘appropriate Government’.
(v) Fifthly, with regard to the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Management of National
Aerospace Laboratories v. Engineering & General
Workers Union and Another , reported in ILR 2015
- 10 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
KAR 349, relied upon by the respondents, learned Senior
Counsel contended that, although the judgment was
delivered after the amendment, the issue before the
Division Bench arose out of an award dated 30.12.2005,
which was governed by the unamended provision. The
Division Bench had considered whether petitioner No.2
was functioning under the authority of the Central
Government. There was no occasion for the Division Bench
to consider the expression ‘owned or controlled by the
Central Government’ introduced by the amendment.
Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable and is not
applicable to the present case.
(vi) Lastly, with regard to the petitioners’
establishment, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology and Others , reported in (2002) 5
SCC 111. He contended that the Apex Court, by a
majority opinion, held that the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR) is under the control of the
- 11 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Government of India and is ‘State’ within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he
contended that the second respondent is not the
competent authority to exercise the power under Section
10 of the I.D. Act in respect of the petitioners’
establishment.
Accordingly, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.
4. Per contra, Sri Arvind Kamath, learned A.S.G. for
the Central Government submits that in view of the
amendment to Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act, the Central
Government is the ‘appropriate Government’ to refer the
dispute related to the petitioner – Establishment under
Section 10 of the I.D. Act. He further submitted that in
case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), the Apex Court
has held that the CSIR is under the control of the Central
Government.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
- 12 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
5. Sri V.R.Datar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in one of the writ petitions, raised the
following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the amendment to the definition of
‘appropriate Government’ under the I.D. Act must be
considered in the context of industrial disputes. The
judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas
(supra) was rendered in the context of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the said judgment is not
applicable to the case on hand.
(ii) Secondly, the very same issue concerning the
petitioners’ establishment was considered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Management of National
Aerospace Laboratories (supra), wherein it was held
that the establishment was neither functioning under the
authority of the Central Government nor was under its
control. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that
the State Government is not the competent authority is
unsustainable.
- 13 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(iii) Thirdly, whether the petitioners’ establishment is
under the control of the Central Government is a question
of fact that must be determined after the parties adduce
evidence. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate
such factual aspects. Therefore, the parties may be
relegated to the Labour Court to raise all their contentions
for adjudication.
(iv) Fourthly, neither the respondent-workmen nor
the petitioners’ establishment are under the control of the
Central Government. CSIR is an autonomous body
registered under the Societies Registration Act and has
independent powers to appoint its employees and take
decisions concerning them. The Central Government has
no authority or control over the petitioners’ establishment.
Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court, on an earlier
occasion, rightly rejected the contentions raised by the
petitioners’ establishment. In support of his contentions,
he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Tata
Memorial Hospital Workers Union v. Tata Memorial
- 14 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Centre and Another , reported in AIR 2010 SC 2943,
and Balwant Rai Saluja and Another v. Air India Ltd.
and Others , reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
6. Sri Muralidhar, the learned counsel appearing as
an amicus curiae, raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners
are not maintainable, as all the contentions raised by them
can be urged before the Labour Court. In matters relating
to industrial disputes, there cannot be a piecemeal
adjudication of the issues. In support of his contentions,
he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in D.P.
Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Others ,
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293 .
(ii) Secondly, the question concerning the meaning
and applicability of the expression ‘appropriate
Government’ involves a mixed question of fact and law.
- 15 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Neither the State Government nor this Court, in the
present proceedings, can conclusively decide the issue
without the parties adducing evidence. Therefore, the
parties must be permitted to raise and establish their
respective contentions before the Labour Court.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
7. Ms. Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents in some of the writ petitions, raised
the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the judgment of the Apex Court in
Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) was rendered in the
context of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The
expression ‘appropriate Government’ under the I.D. Act
must be interpreted in the context of industrial disputes.
According to her, the issue involves disputed questions of
fact and law, which must be agitated before the Labour
Court. She further contended that, in identical matters,
the Labour Court had considered the issue and held that
- 16 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
the State Government was the appropriate authority. In
support of her contentions, she relied upon the judgments
of the Apex Court in Secunderabad Club v.
Commissioner of Income Tax , reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1004, and Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. , reported in (1999)
3 SCC 632.
(ii) Secondly, under Section 33 of the I.D. Act, during
the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a
conciliation officer or board, or any proceedings before a
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an
industrial dispute, the conditions of service of the
workmen are subject to the restrictions prescribed under
the said provision, which has been violated by the
petitioners. In support of her contention, she relied upon
the judgments of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and
Others , reported in AIR 2002 SC 643, and The
Management of SKF Bearings India Ltd. v. S.M. Ravi
Kumar and Others , reported in 2006 Lab. I.C. 1002.
- 17 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the writ petition papers.
9. The point that arises for consideration in this writ
petition is,
Whether, under Section 2(a)(i) as
amended in 2010, the Central Government is
the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to the
petitioner’s Establishment?
10. The fourth respondent - Union raised industrial
disputes with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The second
respondent, after hearing both the parties under Section
10 has opined that there is an industrial dispute existing
between the parties. Hence, referred the dispute to Labour
Court by the impugned orders at Annexures-A. Section
10(1) of the I.D. Act confers the power on ‘appropriate
Government’ to refer the dispute to the court or tribunal.
- 18 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
It is relevant to extract Section 10(1)(a) to (d). The same
is extracted below:
“10. Reference of dispute to Boards, Courts or
Tribunals.-
(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion
that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended,
it may at any time, by order in writing-
(a)refer the dispute to a Board for promoting
a settlement thereof; or
(b)refer any matter appearing to be connected
with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for
inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to
be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it
relates to any matter specified in the Second
Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing
to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute,
whether it relates to any matter specified in the
Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a
Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any
matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not
likely to affect more than one hundred workmen,
the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit,
make the reference to a Labour Court under clause
(c):
- 19 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Provided further that where the dispute relates
to a public utility service and a notice under section
22 has been given, the appropriate Government
shall, unless it considers that the notice has been
frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be
inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this
sub-section notwithstanding that any other
proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute
may have commenced:
Provided also that where the dispute in
relation to which the Central Government is the
appropriate Government, it shall be competent for
the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour
Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be,
constituted by the State Government.”
11. From the above provision it is very clear that
where the ‘appropriate Government’ is of the opinion that,
if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may,
by order in writing, refer the dispute or any other matter
to the Labour Court for adjudication. The ‘appropriate
Government’ as defined under Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D.
Act has been extracted below:
Definition before 2010 Definition after 2010 amendment
Amendment
(a)"Appropriate Government" a) "Appropriate Government"
- 20 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
means-
means-
(i) 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 Dock Labour Board
established under Section 5-A of
the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of
1948), or [the Industrial Finance
Corporation of India Limited
formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956)], or the Employees' State
Insurance Corporation established
under Section 3 of the
Employees' State Insurance Act,
1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board
of Trustees constituted under
Section 3-A of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of
1948), or the Central Board of
Trustees and the State Boards of
Trustees constituted under
Sections 5-A and 5-B,
respectively, of the Employees'
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of
1952), or the Life Insurance
Corporation of India established
under Section 3 of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
(31 of 1956), or [the Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited
registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the
Deposit Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation established
(i) 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 Dock
Labour Board established
under Section 5-A of the
Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of
1948), or [the Industrial
Finance Corporation of India
Limited formed and
registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956)], or the Employees'
State Insurance Corporation
established under Section 3
of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of
1948), or the Board of
Trustees constituted under
Section 3-A of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or
the Central Board of
Trustees and the State
Boards of Trustees constituted
under Sections 5-A and 5-B,
respectively, of the
Employees' Provident Fund
and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or
the Life Insurance
Corporation of India
established under Section 3
of the Life Insurance
- 21 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), or [the Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation
Limited registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956)], or the Deposit
Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation
established under Section 3
of the Deposit Insurance and
Credit Guarantee Corporation
Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or
the Central Warehousing
under Section 3 of the Deposit
Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of
Warehousing
1961), or the Central
Corporation established under
Section 3 of the Warehousing
Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of
1962), or the Unit Trust of India
established under Section 3 of
the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963
(52 of 1963), or the Food
Corporation of India established
under Section 3 or a Board of
Management established for two
or more contiguous States under
Section 16 of the Food
Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of
1964), or [the Airports Authority
of India constituted under
Section 3 of the Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994 (55
of 1994)], or a Regional Rural
Bank established under Section
3 of the Regional Rural Banks
Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the
Export Credit and Guarantee
Corporation Limited or the
Industrial Reconstruction Bank
of India [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 oilfield), (a Cantonment
Board), or a (major port, any
company in which not less than
fifty-one 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, established by or under
any law made by Parliament, or
the Central public sector
undertaking, subsidiary companies
Corporation established under
Section 3 of the
Warehousing Corporations
Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or
the Unit Trust of India
established under Section 3
of the Unit Trust of India
Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or
the Food Corporation of
India established under
Section 3 or a Board of
Management established for
two or more contiguous
States under Section 16 of
the Food Corporations Act,
1964 (37 of 1964), or [the
Airports Authority of India
constituted under Section 3
of the Airports Authority of
India Act, 1994 (55 of
1994)], or a Regional Rural
Bank established under
Section 3 of the Regional
Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21
of 1976), or the Export
Credit and Guarantee
Corporation Limited or the
Industrial Reconstruction
Bank of India [the National
Housing Bank established
under Section 3 of the
National Housing Bank Act,
1987 (53 of 1987)], or (an air
- 22 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
transport service, or a
banking or an insurance
Company), (a mine, an
oilfield), (a Cantonment
Board), or a (major port, the
Central Government), and
(ii) in relation to any other
industrial dispute, the State
Government.
set up by the principal
undertaking and autonomous
bodies owned or controlled by
the Central Government, the
Central Government), and
[(ii) in relation to any other
industrial dispute, including the
State public sector undertaking,
subsidiary companies set up by
the principal undertaking and
autonomous bodies owned or
controlled by the State
Government, the State Government:
Provided that in case of a dispute
between a contractor and the
contract labour employed
through the contractor in any
industrial establishment where
such dispute first arose, the
appropriate Government shall be
the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case
may be, which has control over
such industrial establishment;]
The legislative change and its purpose
12. The question regarding the appropriate
Government requires consideration in the light of the
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, which came
into force on 15.09.2010. The provision for consideration
is Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act, which defines the
appropriate Government in relation to the industrial
disputes specified therein.
- 23 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
13. Before the amendment, apart from the industries
and establishments specifically enumerated in the
provision, the Central Government was the appropriate
Government where the industrial dispute concerned an
industry carried on by or under its authority.
14. Parliament subsequently enlarged the definition
by expressly including, among other categories,
autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central
Government. Corresponding provision was made for
autonomous bodies owned or controlled by a State
Government. The amendment also addressed disputes
between contractors and contract labour through the
proviso to Section 2(a).
15. The legislative materials indicate the purpose of
this change. The Ministry, in its explanatory note to the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour, stated that
the definition of 'appropriate Government' was sought to
be amplified and that the Central Government would be
the appropriate Government for the specified Central
- 24 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
undertakings and autonomous bodies owned or controlled
by it. The Standing Committee recorded that the proposed
amplification was intended to eliminate ambiguity in
identifying the appropriate Government.
16. The words introduced by Parliament must be
given their ordinary and effective operation. The provision
continues to cover an industry carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government; however, it
separately identifies an autonomous body owned or
controlled by that Government as well. If every
autonomous body falling within the latter description were
also required to establish that its industry was carried on
under the authority of the Central Government, the
additional description would be deprived of its independent
significance.
17. The words employed are 'owned or controlled' .
Ownership and control are expressed as alternatives.
Therefore, where an autonomous body is shown to be
controlled by the Central Government within the meaning
- 25 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
of the amended provision, it is unnecessary to establish in
addition that every asset of the body is owned by that
Government. Equally, the existence of a governing body
and the power to take decisions in the ordinary course do
not, by themselves, exclude governmental control. The
character and extent of that control must be assessed
from the applicable institutional framework and the
material on record.
18. Therefore, the present case has to be considered
in the light of the amendment to Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D.
Act. The Division Bench decision of this Court in
Management of National Aerospace Laboratories
(supra), concerned a reference made on 24.04.2001. It
considered the jurisdictional objection under the provision
applicable to that reference. The question arising under
the separate category inserted in 2010 was therefore not
before it. The decision must be respected for what it
decided; however, its application to the present references
must be considered in light of the subsequent statutory
change.
- 26 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
19. The Division Bench of this Court also considered
the judgment of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of
India Ltd. and Others v. National Union Waterfront
Workers , reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. The said
judgment was also rendered prior to the amendment to
Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act. As on the date of delivery
of the judgment i.e., on 30.08.2001, the definition of the
term ‘appropriate Government’ was not yet amended.
The expression ‘autonomous bodies owned or controlled
by the Central Government’ came to be inserted only by
the amendment effected from 15.09.2010. Therefore, the
said judgments are distinguishable and not applicable to
the facts of the present case.
20. In the present case, the institutional position of
CSIR must be considered in the light of the majority
judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). The
Supreme Court examined CSIR's constitution, governing
structure, financial arrangements and the powers of the
Government of India, and found pervasive governmental
control over CSIR. The ultimate question before the
- 27 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Supreme Court was whether CSIR was 'State' under Article
12; nevertheless, its findings concerning the nature of
control over this very institution are relevant to the
statutory inquiry now undertaken in view of the 2010
amendment. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are extracted below:
“ 40. The picture that ultimately emerges is
that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a
rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within
any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be
considered to be a State within the meaning of
Article 12. The question in each case would be —
whether in the light of the cumulative facts as
established, the body is financially, functionally and
administratively dominated by or under the control
of the Government. Such control must be particular
to the body in question and must be pervasive. If
this is found then the body is a State within Article
12. On the other hand, when the control is merely
regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it
would not serve to make the body a State.
41. Coming now to the facts relating to CSIR,
we have no doubt that it is well within the range of
Article 12, a conclusion which is sustainable when
- 28 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
judged according to the tests judicially evolved for
the purpose.
The formation of CSIR
42. On 27-4-1940, the Board of Scientific and
Industrial Research and on 1-2-1941, the Industrial
Research Utilisation Committee were set up by the
Department of Commerce, Government of India
with the broad objective of promoting industrial
growth in this country. On 14-11-1941, a
Resolution was passed by the Legislative Assembly
and accepted by the Government of India to the
following effect:
“This Assembly recommends to the Governor-
General-in-Council that a fund called the Industrial
Research Fund be constituted, for the purpose of
fostering industrial development in this country and
that provision be made in the budget for an annual
grant of rupees ten lakhs to the fund for a period of
five years.”
43. For the purpose of coordinating and
exercising administrative control over the working
of the two research bodies already set up by the
Department of Commerce, and to oversee the
proper utilisation of the Industrial Research Fund,
by a further Resolution dated 26-9-1942, the
Government of India decided to set up a Council of
Industrial Research on a permanent footing which
- 29 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
would be a registered society under the
Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Pursuant to the
Resolution, on 12-3-1942 CSIR was duly registered.
Bye-laws and rules were framed by the Governing
Body of the Society in 1942 which have been
subsequently revised and amended. Unquestionably
this shows that CSIR was “created” by the
Government to carry on in an organized manner
what was being done earlier by the Department of
Commerce of the Central Government. In fact the
two research bodies which were part of the
Department of Commerce have since been
subsumed in CSIR.
Objects and functions
44. The 26-9-1942 Resolution had provided
that the functions of CSIR would be:
(a) to implement and give effect to the
following resolution moved by the Hon'ble
Dewan Bahadur Sir A.R. Mudaliar and passed
by the Legislative Assembly on 14-11-1941
and accepted by the Government of India; …
(quoted earlier in this judgment)
(b) the promotion, guidance and
coordination of scientific and industrial
research in India including the institution and
the financing of specific researches;
- 30 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(c) the establishment or development
and assistance to special institutions or
department of existing institutions for
scientific study of problems affecting
particular industries and trade;
(d) the establishment and award of
research studentships and fellowships;
(e) the utilisation of the results of the
researches conducted under the auspices of
the Council towards the development of
industries in the country and the payment of
a share of royalties arising out of the
development of the results of researches to
those who are considered as having
contributed towards the pursuit of such
researches;
(f) the establishment, maintenance and
management of laboratories, workshops,
institutes, and organisation to further
scientific and industrial research and utilise
and exploit for purposes of experiment or
otherwise any discovery or invention likely to
be of use to Indian industries;
(g) the collection and dissemination or
information in regard not only to research but
to industrial matters generally;
- 31 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(h) publication of scientific papers and a
journal of industrial research and
development; and
(i) any other activities to promote
generally the objects of the resolution
mentioned in (a) above.
45. These objects which have been
incorporated in the memorandum of association
of CSIR manifestly demonstrate that CSIR was
set up in the national interest to further the
economic welfare of the society by fostering
planned industrial development in the country.
That such a function is fundamental to the
governance of the country has already been
held by a Constitution Bench of this Court as far
back as in 1967 in Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal
where it was said : (AIR p. 1863, para 6)
“The State, as defined in Article 12, is thus
comprehended to include bodies created for
the purpose of promoting the educational and
economic interests of the people.”
46. We are in respectful agreement with this
statement of the law. The observations to the
contrary in Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT relied
on by the learned Attorney-General in this context,
do not represent the correct legal position.
- 32 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
47. Incidentally, CSIR was and continues to be
a non-profit-making organization and according to
clause 4 of CSIR's memorandum of association, all
its income and property, however derived shall be
applied only “towards the promotion of those
objects subject nevertheless in respect of the
expenditure to such limitations as the Government
of India may from time to time impose”.
Management and control
48. When the Government of India resolved
to set up CSIR on 26-2-1942, it also decided that
the Governing Body would consist of the following
members:
(1) The Honourable Member of the
Council of His Excellency the Governor-
General in charge of the portfolio of
Commerce (ex officio).
(2) A representative of the Commerce
Department of the Government of India,
appointed by the Government of India.
(3) A representative of the Finance
Department of the Government of India,
appointed by the Government of India.
- 33 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(4) Two members of the Board of
Scientific and Industrial Research elected by
the said Board.
(5) Two members of the Industrial
Research Utilisation Committee elected by the
said Committee.
(6) The Director of Scientific and
Industrial Research.
(7) One or more members to be
nominated by the Government of India to
represent interests not otherwise
represented.
49. The present Rules and Regulations, 1999
of CSIR provide that:
“(a) The Prime Minister of India shall be
the ex officio President of the Society.
(b) The Minister in charge of the
ministry or department, dealing with the
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
shall be the ex officio Vice-President of the
Society:
Provided that during any period when
the Prime Minister is also such Minister, any
person nominated in this behalf by the Prime
Minister shall be the Vice-President.
- 34 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
(c) Minister in charge of Finance and
Industry (ex officio).
(d) The members of the Governing
Body.
(e) Chairman, Advisory Board.
(f) Any other person or persons
appointed by the President, CSIR.”
The Governing Body of the Society is constituted by
the:
(a) Director General;
(b) Member Finance;
(c) Directors of two national
laboratories;
(d) Two eminent
Scientists/Technologists, one of whom shall
be from academia;
(e) Heads of two scientific
departments/agencies of the Government of
India.
50. The dominant role played by the
Government of India in the Governing Body of CSIR
is evident. The Director General who is ex officio
Secretary of the Society is appointed by the
Government of India [Rule 2(iii)]. The submission
- 35 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
of the learned Attorney-General that the Governing
Body consisted of members, the majority of whom
were non-governmental members is, having regard
to the facts on record, unacceptable. Furthermore,
the members of the Governing Body who are not
there ex officio are nominated by the President and
their membership can also be terminated by him
and the Prime Minister is the ex officio President of
CSIR. It was then said that although the Prime
Minister was ex officio President of the Society but
the power being exercised by the Prime Minister is
as President of the Society. This is also the
reasoning in Sabhajit Tewary. With respect, the
reasoning was and the submission is erroneous. An
ex officio appointment means that the appointment
is by virtue of the office; without any other warrant
or appointment than that resulting from the holding
of a particular office. Powers may be exercised by
an officer, in this case the Prime Minister, which are
not specifically conferred upon him, but are
necessarily implied in his office (as Prime Minister),
these are ex officio.
51. The control of the Government in CSIR is
ubiquitous. The Governing Body is required to
administer, direct and control the affairs and funds
of the Society and shall, under Rule 43, have
authority “to exercise all the powers of the Society
subject nevertheless in respect of expenditure to
- 36 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
such limitations as the Government of India may
from time to time impose”. The aspect of financial
control by the Government is not limited to this and
is considered separately. The Governing Body also
has the power to frame, amend or repeal the bye-
laws of CSIR but only with the sanction of the
Government of India. Bye-law 44 of the 1942 Bye-
laws had provided “any alteration in the bye-laws
shall require the prior approval of the Governor-
General-in-Council”.
52. Rule 41 of the present Rules provides
that:
“The President may review/amend/vary any of
the decisions of the Governing Body and pass
such orders as considered necessary to be
communicated to the Chairman of the
Governing Body within a month of the
decision of the Governing Body and such order
shall be binding on the Governing Body. The
Chairman may also refer any question which
in his opinion is of sufficient importance to
justify such a reference for decision of the
President, which shall be binding on the
Governing Body.”
(emphasis added)
53. Given the fact that the President of CSIR is
the Prime Minister, under this Rule the subjugation
- 37 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
of the Governing Body to the will of the Central
Government is complete.
54. As far as the employees of CSIR are
concerned the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules and the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, for the time being in
force, are from the outset applicable to them
subject to the modification that references to the
“President” and “government servant” in the
Conduct Rules would be construed as “President of
the Society” and “officer and establishments in the
service of the Society” respectively (Bye-law 12).
The scales of pay applicable to all the employees of
CSIR are those prescribed by the Government of
India for similar personnel, save in the case of
specialists (Bye-law 14) and in regard to all matters
concerning service conditions of employees of CSIR,
the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed
by the Government of India and such other rules
and orders issued by the Government of India from
time to time are also, under Bye-law 15 applicable
to the employees of CSIR. Apart from this, the
rules/orders issued by the Government of India
regarding reservation of posts for SC/ST apply in
regard to appointments to posts to be made in
CSIR (Bye-law 19). CSIR cannot lay down or
change the terms and conditions of service of its
employees and any alteration in the bye-laws can
- 38 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
be carried out only with the approval of the
Government of India (Bye-law 20).
Financial aid
55. The initial capital of CSIR was Rs 10
lakhs, made available pursuant to the
Resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 14-
11-1941. Paragraph 5 of the 26-9-1942
Resolution of the Government of India pursuant
to which CSIR was formed reads:
“The Government of India have decided that a
fund, viz., the Industrial Research Fund,
should be constituted by grants from the
Central revenues to which additions are to be
made from time to time as moneys flow in
from other sources. These ‘other sources’ will
comprise grants, if any, by Provincial
Governments, by industrialists for special or
general purposes, contributions from
universities or local bodies, donations or
benefactions, royalties, etc., received from the
development of the results of industrial
research, and miscellaneous receipts. The
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
will exercise full powers in regard to the
expenditure to be met out of the Industrial
Research Fund subject to its observing the
bye-laws framed by the Governing Body of the
Council, from time to time, with the approval
of the Governor-General-in-Council, and to its
- 39 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
annual budget being approved by the
Governor-General-in-Council.”
56. As already noted, the initial capital of Rs 10
lakhs was made available by the Central
Government. According to the statement handed up
to the Court on behalf of CSIR the present financial
position of CSIR is that at least 70% of the funds of
CSIR are available from grants made by the
Government of India. For example, out of the total
funds available to CSIR for the years 1998-99,
1999-2000, 2000-01 of Rs 1023.68 crores, Rs
1136.69 crores and Rs 1219.04 crores respectively,
the Government of India has contributed Rs 713.32
crores, Rs 798.74 crores and Rs 877.88 crores. A
major portion of the balance of the funds available
is generated from charges for rendering research
and development works by CSIR for projects such
as the Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission,
Technology Mission on oilseeds and pulses and
maize or grant-in-aid projects from other
government departments. Funds are also received
by CSIR from sale proceeds of its products,
publications, royalties etc. Funds are also received
from investments but under Bye-law 6 of CSIR,
funds of the Society may be invested only in such
manner as prescribed by the Government of India.
Some contributions are made by the State
Governments and to a small extent by “individuals,
- 40 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
institutions and other agencies”. The non-
governmental contributions are a pittance
compared to the massive governmental input.
57. As far as expenditure is concerned, under
Bye-law 1 as it stands at present, the budget
estimates of the Society are to be prepared by the
Governing Body “keeping in view the instructions
issued by the Government of India from time to
time in this regard”. Apart from an internal audit,
the accounts of CSIR are required to be audited by
the Comptroller and Auditor-General and placed
before the table of both Houses of Parliament (Rule
69).
58. In the event of dissolution, unlike other
registered societies which are governed by Section
14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the
members of CSIR have no say in the distribution of
its assets and under clause 5 of the memorandum
of association of CSIR, on the winding up or
dissolution of CSIR any property remaining after
payment of all debts shall have to be dealt with “in
such manner as the Government of India may
determine”. CSIR is therefore both historically and
in its present operation subject to the financial
control of the Government of India. The assets and
funds of CSIR though nominally owned by the
- 41 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
Society are in the ultimate analysis owned by the
Government.
59. From whichever perspective the facts are
considered, there can be no doubt that the
conclusion reached in Sabhajit Tewary was
erroneous. If the decision of Sabhajit Tewary had
sought to lay down as a legal principle that a
society registered under the Societies Act or a
company incorporated under the Companies Act is,
by that reason alone, excluded from the concept of
State under Article 12, it is a principle which has
long since been discredited. “Judges have made
worthy, if shamefaced, efforts, while giving lip
service to the rule, to riddle it with exceptions and
by distinctions reduce it to a shadow.”
60. In the assessment of the facts, the Court
had assumed certain principles, and sought
precedential support from decisions which were
irrelevant and had “followed a groove chased
amidst a context which has long since crumbled”.
Had the facts been closely scrutinised in the proper
perspective, it could have led and can only lead to
the conclusion that CSIR is a State within the
meaning of Article 12.
61. Should Sabhajit Tewary still stand as an
authority even on the facts merely because it has
stood for 25 years? We think not. Parallels may be
- 42 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
drawn even on the facts leading to an untenable
interpretation of Article 12 and a consequential
denial of the benefits of fundamental rights to
individuals who would otherwise be entitled to them
and
“[t]here is nothing in our Constitution which
prevents us from departing from a previous decision
if we are convinced of its error and its baneful effect
on the general interests of the public”. (AIR p. 672,
para 15)
Since on a re-examination of the question we have
come to the conclusion that the decision was plainly
erroneous, it is our duty to say so and not
perpetuate our mistake.
62. Besides a new fact relating to CSIR has
come to light since the decision in Sabhajit Tewary
which unequivocally vindicates the conclusion
reached by us and fortifies us in delivering the coup
de grâce to the already attenuated decision in
Sabhajit Tewary. On 31-10-1986, in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the
Central Government specified 17-11-1986 as the
date on and from which the provisions of sub-
section (3) of Section 14 of the 1985 Act would
apply to CSIR “being the Society owned and
controlled by Government”.
- 43 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
63. The learned Attorney-General contended
that the notification was not conclusive of the fact
that CSIR was a State within the meaning of Article
12 and that even if an entity is not a State within
the meaning of Article 12, it is open to the
Government to issue a notification for the purpose
of ensuring the benefits of the provisions of the Act
to its employees.
64. We cannot accept this. Reading Article
323-A of the Constitution and Section 14 of the
1985 Act it is clear that no notification under
Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act
could have been issued by the Central Government
unless the employees of CSIR were either
appointed to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of
any local or other authority within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of
India or of any corporation owned or controlled by
the Government. Once such a notification has been
issued in respect of CSIR, the consequence will be
that an application would lie at the instance of the
appellants at least before the Administrative
Tribunal. No new jurisdiction was created in the
Administrative Tribunal. The notification which was
issued by the Central Government merely served to
shift the service disputes of the employees of CSIR
from the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court
- 44 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
under Article 226 to the Administrative Tribunals on
the factual basis that CSIR was amenable to the
writ jurisdiction as a State or other authority under
Article 12 of the Constitution.
65. Therefore, the notification issued in 1986
by the Central Government under Article 14(2) of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 serves in
removing any residual doubt as to the nature of
CSIR and decisively concludes the issues before us
against it.”
21. From the judgment of the Apex Court it is very
clear that CSIR is under the control of the Central
Government. Therefore, nothing is left for the Labour
Court to decide upon pertaining to that issue. In view of
the above, the ‘appropriate Government’ for CSIR is the
Central Government.
22. Therefore, the order of reference passed by the
State Government in the present case is not an order
passed by an ‘appropriate Government’ as required under
Section 10(1)(i) of the I.D. Act.
- 45 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
23. Insofar as the objection regarding maintainability
of the writ petition is concerned, Section 10 of the I.D. Act
authorizes the ‘appropriate Government’ to refer an
industrial dispute for adjudication. The issue in this case,
as to whether the authority making the reference was
competent under Section 2(a), goes to the root of its
power to make the reference.
24. In National Engineering Industries Ltd. v.
State of Rajasthan , reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371, the
Apex Court recognised that a jurisdictional challenge to a
reference under Section 10 can be examined by the High
Court under Article 226. It further explained that the
Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the
reference and cannot examine the validity of the reference
itself. Similarly, this Court in the case of Institute of
Hotel Management Catering Technology and
Nutrition v. Workmen of Institute of Hotel
Management Class IV Employees Association ,
reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 733, has held that, a
writ petition under Article 226, challenging the
- 46 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
jurisdiction/power of the State Government to refer the
dispute to an industrial tribunal, is maintainable as a
labour court cannot decide the question of competency of
State Government in making reference where an
establishment is under the control of the Central
Government.
25. Further, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State
of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, at
paragraph 27, the Apex Court reiterated that the
availability of an alternative remedy does not exclude writ
jurisdiction where the order or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction.
26. In the present case, the petitioners have
questioned the State Government's competence to make
the impugned references, contending that the Central
Government is the appropriate Government under the
amended Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act.
- 47 -
WP No. 36218 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24209 of 2025
WP No. 24369 of 2025
27. Accordingly, the writ petitions are maintainable for
examining the competence of the authority making the
impugned references.
28. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
(i) The writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The orders dated 02.03.2024 and 07.10.2024
passed by the second respondent vide
Annexures-A in all the petitions are set aside.
29. Since the writ petitions are allowed, the contention
of the respondent raised in respect of Section 33 of the I.D.
Act would not arise for consideration. However, liberty is
reserved to the respondent to raise the same before the
appropriate forum.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending IAs.
stand disposed of.
The fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at Rs.8,000/-.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Cm/-