CSIR Workers’ Reinstatement Disputes: Karnataka HC Quashes State References, Holds Centre Is Appropriate Government Under Amended ID Act

CSIR and its constituent laboratory, National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), challenged State Government references of industrial disputes to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The disputes concerned reinstatement and recognition of workers as permanent workmen.

The petitioners objected that the Central Government—not the State Government—was the “appropriate Government” because CSIR was controlled by the Central Government.

The State nevertheless referred the disputes by orders dated 2 March 2024 and 7 October 2024.

The petitioners sought to quash those orders.

Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the “appropriate Government” to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication; Section 2(a)(i), as amended with effect from 15 September 2010, includes autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government within the category for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government.

“Owned or controlled” are alternatives, and the nature and extent of governmental control are assessed by reference to the relevant institutional framework and material.

In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, the Supreme Court found CSIR to be under pervasive Central Government control; that finding was relevant to the statutory inquiry here.

National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 1 SCC 371, recognises that a jurisdictional challenge to a Section 10 reference may be examined under Article 226, while Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, confirms that an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction.

The Court held that the 2010 amendment added autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government as a distinct category; requiring such a body also to establish that its industry was carried on under the Central Government’s authority would deprive the added words of independent effect.

Applying Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court concluded that CSIR was under Central Government control, so the Central Government was the appropriate Government for the disputes.

The earlier Division Bench decision concerning NAL and pre-amendment authorities did not determine the effect of the category added in 2010 and therefore did not govern these references.

Because the identity of the appropriate Government went to the referring authority’s jurisdiction, and the Labour Court could not determine the validity of the reference on that ground, the writ petitions were maintainable.

The State Government’s references were therefore made without authority under Section 10(1).

The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders dated 2 March 2024 and 7 October 2024 were set aside.

The Court did not consider the respondents’ Section 33 contention and reserved their liberty to raise it before the appropriate forum.