NASHIK WORKERS UNION versus HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 26-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) i S.C.R. 973 
NASHIK WORKERS UNION 
v. 
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333 of2010) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 2(a) - Appropriate 
government - Complaint under the 1971 Act by the appellant-
Workers Union against the respondent-Company (Hindustan 
Aeronautics Limited) for reinstatement of the trainees with continuity 
of services and back wages - Appropriate government to refer the 
said dispute - Division Bench of the High Court held that the 
appropriate government for the purpose of the 1947 Act is the 
Central Government in relation to the Company, thus, the complaints 
filed by the Union against the company were not maintainable -
Held: Appropriate Government in relation to the respondent 
Company is the State Government - Matter remitted to the High 
Court for fresh adjudication on merits - Maharashtra Recognition 
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 
1971. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 **HAL 2 has not taken note of earlier decision 
in *HAL 1. It has been clearly held in HAL 1 that re2ard bein2 
had to the dictionary clause of the ID Act for the purpose of 
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is the State Government which 
has to make the reference. In HAL 2 the Court has referred to 
decision in ***SAIL's case and opined that it is undisputed that 
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an undertaking of the Central 
Government and it is the Central Government which exercises 
full control over the same and, therefore, the appropriate 
Government is the Central Government. This analysis runs 
counter to HAL 1 and as well the ratio of the decision in SAIL 's 
case. On the contrary there is no discussion either on the facts 
or the law. It has been opined that the facts are "undisputed". In 
HAL 1, the three-Judge Bench had referred to the decision in 
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union. As has been held in Tata 
973 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
974 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
Memorial Hospital Workers Union case, the authority in Heavy 
En1:ineerin1: Mazdoor" Union has been approved in SAIL with some 
divergence. The authority in SA/L's case, as the conclusion would 
show, covers two situations-the unamended provision and the 
amended provision. It does not disturb the principles stated in 
HAL 1. Thus, two aspects, first, the HAL 2 does not take note of 
HAL 1 and second, it proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts 
which are not stated. It is to be noted that there is nothing in the 
order in HAL 2 to suggest that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is 
an agent of the Central Government. As HAL 2 did not notice 
HAL 1 which was approved in SA/L's case, it cannot be considered 
as a binding precedent. Therefore, HAL 1 still holds good and 
lays down the correct law and is binding as its foundation flows 
from Heavy Engineering Mazdoor U11io11 which was approved in 
SAIL with some divergence. The divergence really does not affect 
the approval. HAL 2 cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. 
Thus, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court did 
not apply the ratio in SAIL 's case correctly and, thus, the entire 
anlaysis has to be held to be fallacious. [Para 26][992-A-H) 
1.2 It is perceptible that the High Court has not adverted 
to the merits of the case and dismissed L.P.A. of 2002 on the 
ground that it did not survive aJter dismissal of L.P.A. of 2006. 
As the order passed in L.P.A. of 2006 is set aside and opined 
that the "appropriate Government" in relation to the respondent 
company is the State Government, the matter is remitted to the 
High Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The impugned order 
is set aside [Para 27, 28)(993-A-C-) 
*Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Workmen and others 
(HAL I) (1975) 4 sec 679: 1976 (1) SCR 231 -
affirmed. 
**Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Another v. 
Hindustan Aeronautical Canteen Kamgar Sangh & 
Others (HAL 2) (2007) 15 SCC 51 - Not a binding 
precedent. 
***Steel Authority of India and others v. National Union 
Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1:2001 
(2) Suppl. SCR 343; Heavy Engineering Mazdoor 
NASHIK WORKERS UNION v. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS 
LIMITED 
Union v. The State of Bihar & ors (1969) 1 SCC 765: 
1970 (1) SCR 995; Food Corpn. of India v. Transport 
& Dock Workers Union (1999) 7 SCC 59; Ramana 
Dayaram Shelly v. International Airport of India & 
others (1979) 3 SCC 489:

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