GOA SAMPLING EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION versus GENERAL SUPERINTENDANCE CO. OF INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 11-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
313 
A 
GOA SAMPLING EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION 
v. 
GENERAL SUPERINTENDANCE CO. OF INDIA PVT. 
B 
LTD. AND ORS. 
December I1, 1984 
[D.A. DBSAI AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes A.ct I947, Sections 2 (a) (I) and JO (1) (d). 
Industrial dispute in a Union Territory-Central Government whether ·'ttppro-
priate Government' to refer dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 239. 
'Administration of Union Terrilory'-Administrator-Central Government 
whether 'appropriate Government' to refer industrial dispute in a:~Union Territory 
to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 
General Clauses A.ct 1897 Sections 3 (8), 3 (60), 31(62.4.). 
'Central Governrrient'-'State Go~·ernment'-Union Territory'-;Admittis~ 
!ration of Union Territory'-' Distinction between. 
Word & Phrases-Mean;ng of: 
'appropriate Covernment'-Section 2 (a) (I) Industrial Dispute A.ct 1947 
"In relation to the administration of a Union) Territory'-Section 3 (8) (b) 
(iii) and 3 (60) (c) General Clauses A.ct. 1897. 
The Central Government as an 'appropriate Government' referred the 
Industrial disputes between the 
Appellant-emp1oy~s' Association and the 
first Respondent-employerin each of the Appeals under Sec. 10 (I) (d) of the · 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. 
A preliminary objection was raised that~the Central Government was not 
the 'appropdate Government' in relation to the said industrial disputes and 
consequently the Central Government had! no pawer under Sec. 10 (I) (d) of 
the Act to make the five references and that the Tribunal would have no 
jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Appellant-Association "'repelled this 
objection by contending that the workmen were 'dock workers' within the 
meaning of the expression in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) 
Act, 1948 and as they were working at -Mormugao PGrt, a major port in the 
Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, the Central Government would be the 
'appropriate Government' in relation to the industrial dispute and consequently 
the references were valid and competent. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H, 
374 
stlPJ.llM!! COUlT REPORTS 
[1985] ~ S.C.ll· 
The Tribunal held that the workmen covered by the reference who were 
iron-ore semplers were •dock workers' as defined in the Dock Workers 
(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and as they were warking In a major 
port, in a Union Territory, the Central Government wuold be the 'appropriate 
Government' for referring the industrial dispute. The Tribunal over-ruled the 
preliminary objection and set down the references for final hearing. 
The first IC11pondent·employers filed applications under Article 227 in the 
High Court which held that the workmen, who were iron ore samplers. were 
neither comprehended in the expression 'dock workers' as defined in the Dock 
Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. nor involved in any work 
connected with or related to a major port. and were not involved in an indus-
trial dispute concerning a major-port and therefore the Central Government 
w811 not the 'appropriate Government' for referring the industrial dispute. 
It further held tbat the Central Government is not the State Government for 
tho Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under Section 2 (a) (i) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but it is the Administrator appointed under 
Article 239 and therefore the Central Government was not the 'appropriate 
Government' and had no jurisdiction to make the refer~nces. The rule was 
made absolute and the references quashed. 
Allowing the Appeals to this Court, 
HELD: 1. The Central..Government as the jappropriate Governmenf 
had made the references. The High Court was clearJy in error in quashing the 
references. The judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside and the 
award of the Tribunal on the preliminary point about the competence of the 
Central Government to rnake the reference under Section JO (I) of Industrial 
Disputes, Act 1947 is confirmed. The Tribunal will be at liberty to examine 
the contention whether iron ore samplers are involved in any wprk connected 
with or related to a major port or are dock workers and come to its own 
decision .uninfiuenced by the view taken by the High Court. As tho dispute 
is an old one, the Tribunal is to give top priority anQ dispose of the matter 
within a period of six months. [386G ; 387D·E, CJ 
z (i) Indisputably th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.