Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ultra Tach Cement Limited vs Brijlal Patel on 8 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
1 WP-6080-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6080 of 2018
ULTRA TACH CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
BRIJLAL PATEL
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate with Ms. Anannya Shree
Adhikari - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Tanesh Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present
petition was left to be decided along with the batch of petitions, which were
decided by the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 1442 of 2020,
3233 of 2020, 3235 of 2020, 3348 of 2020, 3352 of 2020, 4160 of 2020,
4162 of 2020, 4573 of 2020, 4596 of 2020, and 4938 of 2020. Therefore, it
is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the light of the
aforesaid order.
Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any distinction.
Therefore, the present petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated
08.06.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 1442 of 2020, 3233 of 2020, 3235 of 2020,
3348 of 2020, 3352 of 2020, 4160 of 2020, 4162 of 2020, 4573 of 2020,
4596 of 2020, and 4938 of 2020, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
2 WP-6080-2018
“Since this batch of petitions is involving same question,
therefore, it is analogously heard.
For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P.
No.1442/2020 are being taken up. All the petitions are listed for
final hearing in motion stage in pursuance to the order dated
18.01.2021, accordingly, parties are ready to argue the matter
finally and it is finally heard.
A petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order dated
30.09.2019 (Annexure-P/13) passed in Case No.64/18 IDR by
Labour Court, Satna deciding reference made to it by the office of
Labour Commissioner, Indore, as the dispute was raised under
Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act, 1947’). The question of reference was
“as to whether Siya Sharan Pandey s/o Ram Milan Pandey
has been retired from service prior to the prescribed age of
superannuation? If yes, then whether the order of superannuation
is legal and appropriate? If not, then what benefit can be granted
to the workman superannuated and what direction should be given
to the employer in this regard?”
2. The reference was answered by the Labour Court after
framing as many as three issues holding that the order of
superannuation of the applicant (respondent herein) datedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:498523 WP-6080-2018
26.10.2015 retiring him w.e.f. 31.01.2016 was illegal
and unjustified and as such, the same was set aside and direction
was issued to the employer (present petitioner) to allow the
respondent to be continued in service till the age of 60 years and
further directed that he be also paid back wages at the rate of 50%
from the date when he superannuated from service till the date of
order.
3. The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the
question raised may be thus;
(3.1) The respondent had worked in the
petitioner’s organisation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till 31.01.2016. His last
drawn pay was Rs.24,426/-. He was retired after attaining the age
of 58 years. As per the applicant (respondent herein) his
superannuation was contrary to the amendment made by the State
of Madhya Pradesh, published in State Gazette on 28.06.2014
enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as such,
retiring him w.e.f. 31.01.2016 was illegal as the age of
superannuation has already been determined as 60 years. The
respondent challenged the said action of the petitioner saying that
his superannuation comes within the definition of retrenchment
according to the definition provided under the provisions of the
Act, 1947. He raised the dispute seeking declaration of order dated
26.10.2015 retiring him w.e.f. 31.01.2016 illegal and void and
further claimed that he may be allowed to continue till the age ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:498524 WP-6080-2018
60 years and be also paid salary from the date of superannuation
till the date of reinstatement or attaining the age of 60 years.
(3.2) Reply has been filed by the petitioner taking stand
therein that according to the order of appointment and the terms
and conditions contained therein, the age of superannuation was
determined as 58 years and the amendment on which reliance has
been placed by the employee is not applicable to the petitioner’s
organisation.
(3.3) The Labour Court entertained the reference made to it
by the Labour Commissioner, Indore, and answered vide
impugned award dated 30.09.2019 holding that the order dated
26.10.2015 retiring the respondent w.e.f. 31.01.2016 at the age of
58 years was illegal and void and directed him to be entitled to get
50% of back wages till the date of attaining the age of 60 years.
(3.4) Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court,
this petition has been filed by the petitioner raising solitary ground
that the impugned award is without jurisdiction as the
petitioner/company is a group of cement manufacturing
industry engaged in manufacturing of cement and governs with
the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act, 1951’) and as per Schedule-I of the
said Act, cement industry is shown at Item No.35 under the
control of Central Government and as such, provisions of Madhya
Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:498525 WP-6080-2018
brevity the ‘Act, 1961’) and Rules framed thereunder are not
applicable to the cement industry.
4. The respondent-workman working in the petitioner’s
company should have raised industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer appointed by the Central
Government because the “appropriate Government” for the
respondent was the Central Government and as such, the State
Government has committed an error in entertaining and referring
the dispute decided by the Labour Court, Satna by the impugned
award, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction and declared to
be void. The hub of the issue is whether the State Government is
an “appropriate Government” and competent to refer the dispute
in regard to respondent or not?
5. Shri Adhikari appearing for the petitioner giving strength
to his stand submits that the petitioner’s organisation is a group of
cement industry and is under control of the Central Government
because the cement industry finds place at Item No.-35 of the First
Schedule of the Act, 1951 and according to him, the cement
industry and the employees working therein govern with the
provisions of the Act, 1951 as the same is under the control of the
Central Government. He has drawn attention of this Court towards
Section 2 of the Act, 1951 which reads as under:-
“2. Declaration as to expediency of control by the Union.-
It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest thatSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:498526 WP-6080-2018
the Union should take under its control the industries specified in
the First Schedule.”
Further, Item No.-35 of the First Schedule of the Act,
1951 reads as under:- “35. Cement and Gypsum Products:
(1) Portland cement.
(2) Asbestos cement.
(3) Insulating boards.
(4) Gypsum boards, wall boards and the like.”
6. Shri Adhikari further submits that as per Section 4 of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 since the
cement industries are under the control of the Central
Government, therefore, are governed with the provisions of the
Act, 1946 and no other provisions like the Act, 1961 would be
applicable to them. He has further drawn attention of this Court
towards Section 4 of the Act, 1946 which reads as under:-
[(4) Nothing in this Act shall apply to-
(i) any industry to which the provisions of Chapter VII of
the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of
1947) apply; or
(ii) any industrial establishment to which the provisions of
the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1961 (Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of 1961) apply:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
7 WP-6080-2018
1961 (Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of 1961), the provisions of this Act
shall apply to all industrial establishments under the control of the
Central Government.]”
7. He has also submitted that the provisions of the Act, 1961
do not apply to the petitioner/company as per Section 2 of the Act,
1961. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards Section 2
of the Act, 1961 which provides for applicability of the provisions
of the said Act which reads as under:-
“2. Application of the Act.- (1) This Act shall apply to :-
(a) every undertaking wherein the number of employees on
any day during the twelve months preceding or on the day this Act
comes into force or non any day thereafter was or is more than
twenty; and
(b) such other class or classes of undertakings as the State
Government may, from time to time, by notification, specify in
this behalf :
[Provided that it shall not apply to an undertaking carried on
by or under the authority of the Central Government or railway
administration or a mine or an oilfield.]”
8. Shri Adhikari submits that proviso attached to Section 2
categorically provides that the provisions of the Act, 1961 would
not be applicable to an undertaking carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government. He has further drawn
attention of this Court towards Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
8 WP-6080-2018
submits that Section 4 very categorically provides that where the
provisions of the Act, 1961 apply, the provisions of the Act, 1946
would not apply as Section 4 of the Act, 1961 provides as under:-
“4. Central Act XX of 1946 not to apply.-Nothing in
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (XX of
1946), shall, apply to any undertaking to which this Act applies :”
9.Shri Adhikari also submits that in view of the aforesaid
submissions, it is clear that the amendment made under the
provisions of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Rules, 1963 which has been framed under the power conferred in
Section 21 of the Act, 1961 wherein Rule 14-A prescribed the age
of retirement and as such, the earlier age of retirement i.e. 58 years
was increased to 60 years. He also submits that so far as the
petitioner is concerned, the provisions of the Act, 1946 are
applicable to the petitioner/company and the Rules made under the
power conferred in Section 55 of the Act, 1946, are known as the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946
which itself contained the age of retirement which is prescribed in
Schedule-I-B attached to the said Rules, which reads as under:-
“(3) Age of retirement
The age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall
be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman
under an agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which
is binding on both the workman and the employer. Where there isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:498529 WP-6080-2018
no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on
completion of [58] years of age by the workman.”
10. Shri Adhikari further submits that in view of the
provisions of the Act, 1946 there is a “wage settlement” between
the Cement Manufacturers’ Association and Workers’ Federation
& Central Trade Unions on 27.04.2005 which is available on
record as Annexures-R-J-1 to R-J-4 filed along with rejoinder. He
also submits that as per the “wage settlement”, the employees had
taken the benefit of wage enhancement made from time to time by
the Central Government and, therefore, at the verge of retirement,
the respondent cannot take the benefit of the age of retirement
enhanced by the State Government because there is no increase in
the age of retirement as prescribed under the provisions of the
Central Rules, 1946 which governed the service conditions of the
respondent. Shri Adhikari also submits that the State notification
published in the State Gazette on 28.06.2016 (Annexure-P/6)
increasing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years has no
application for the respondent and as such, the communication
made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 23.07.2020
(Annexure-P/7) is also unjustified asking the petitioner/company
to retire its employee at the age of 60 years as their age of
superannuation has been increased to the age of 60 years. He
submits that as the provisions of the Act, 1961 and the Rules,
1963 do not have any application over the petitioner/company,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
10 WP-6080-2018
therefore, the State amendment has no application for the
employees working under the petitioner/company. Shri Adhikari
further submits that the petitioner/company is having units all over
the India and its employees are transferred from one unit to
another even out of the State and, therefore, the State amendment
has no application and its applicability over the employees
working under the petitioner/company is unreasonable. Shri
Adhikari also submits that the cement industries are established in
close proximity to a mine and its employees are also attached to a
mine and indubitably, the age of retirement of the employees
working in a mine, is still 58 years. He further submits that
suppose if an employee of petitioner/company is attached to a
mine and retired at a relevant point of time at the age of 58 years,
the same would cause discrimination with him as the employees
working with the petitioner/company would be retired at the age of
60 years as per the State amendment. He also submits that there
cannot be discrimination within the same set of employees and to
maintain uniformity, the State amendment has no application. Shri
Adhikari further submits that the Supreme Court in case of
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and others reported in (2003)
10 SCC 733, has explained the employee of a controlled industry
in the context of provisions of the Act, 1961 and he placed
reliance on paragraph-26 of the said judgment which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
11 WP-6080-2018
“26. A company registered under the Companies Act for the
purposes of carrying on any trade or business is a private
enterprise to earn livelihood and to make profits out of such
activities. Banking is also a kind of profession and a commercial
activity, the primary motive behind it can well be said to earn
returns and profits. Since time immemorial, such activities have
been carried on by individuals generally. It is a private affair of the
company though the case of nationalized banks stands on a
different footing. There may well be companies, in which majority
of the share capital may be contributed out of the State funds and
in that view of the matter there may be more participation or
dominant participation of the State in managing the affairs of the
company. But in the present case we are concerned with a banking
company which has its own resources to raise its funds without
any contribution or shareholding by the State. It has its own Board
of directors elected by its shareholders. It works like any other
private company in the banking business having no monopoly
status at all. Any company carrying on baking business with a
capital of five lakhs will become a scheduled bank. All the same,
banking activity as a whole carried on by various banks
undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the economy of the
country in general. Money of the shareholders and the depositors
is with such companies, carrying on baking activity. The banks
finance the borrowers on any given rate of interest at a particular
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
12 WP-6080-2018
time. They advance loans as against securities. Therefore, it is
obviously necessary to have regulatory check over such activities
in the interest of the company itself, the shareholders, the
depositors as well as to maintain the proper financial equilibrium
of the national economy. The banking companies have not been
set up for the purposes of building the economy of the State; on
the other hand such private companies have been voluntarily
established for their own purposes and interest but their activities
are kept under check so that their activities may not go wayward
and harm the economy in general. A private banking company
with all freedom that it has, has to act in a manner that it may not
be in conflict with or against the fiscal policies of the State and for
such purposes, guidelines are provided by Reserve Bank so that a
proper fiscal discipline, to conduct its affairs in carrying on its
business, is maintained. So as to ensure adherence to such fiscal
discipline, if need be, at times, even the management of the
company can be taken over. Nontheless, as observed earlier, these
are all regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guidelines
and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the
company. For other companies in general carrying on other
business activities, may be manufacturing, other industries or any
business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the
Companies Act, as indicated earlier. There also, the main
consideration is that the company itself may not sink because of its
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
13 WP-6080-2018
won mismanagement or the interest of the shareholders or people
generally may not be jeopardized for that reason. Besides taking
care of such interest as indicated above, there is no other interest
of the State, to control the affairs and management of the private
companies. Care is taken in regard to the industries covered under
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 that their
production, which is important for the economy, may not go
down, yet the business activity is carried on by such companies or
corporations which only remains a private activity of the
entrepreneurs/companies.”
11. Shri Adhikari has further drawn attention of this Court
towards Article 254 of the Constitution of India which clearly
provides that if there is any inconsistency between the law made
by the Parliament and the State Legislature, then the law made by
the Central Government would prevail. He further submits that the
subject matter of industrial and labour disputes is a part of
concurrent list which finds place at Serial No.22 and under the
existing circumstance, the law made by the parliament would
prevail and according to it, the age of superannuation of the
respondent-workman is 58 years.
12. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Verma appearing for the
respondents has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioner and supported the award passed by the Labour
Court, Satna saying that the issue raised by the petitioner before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
14 WP-6080-2018
this Court has rightly been considered by the Labour Court and
negate the said issue saying that the State Government has also a
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent-
workman. He submits that admittedly the petitioner/company is a
controlled industry which has been defined in Section 2 (ee) of the
Act, 1947. He further submits that the Central Government has
issued a notification on 08.12.1977 exercising the power conferred
under Section 39 of the Act, 1947 delegating all the State
Governments to exercise power in relation to the cement industry
which is controlled by the Central Government relating to the
dispute between the employers who are the member of a Cement
Manufacturers Association. As such, the State Government is also
competent to refer the dispute of a workman working under the
petitioner/company which is a controlled industry. He further
submits that only for those companies which are having their own
mines and quarries and are part of the cement industry, the Central
Government is an “appropriate Government” and the workman
working under those industries cannot approach the State
Government for redressal of their dispute/grievance. Shri Verma
relies upon an order passed by this Court in W.P No.10143/2014
parties being M/s. Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Ashwani Kumar
Singh and another and other connected petitions dealing with the
issue regarding “appropriate Government” of workman working in
the mine, in which the High Court has relied upon the view taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
15 WP-6080-2018
by the Supreme Court in case of Yovan India Cement Employees
Union and another vs. Management of India Cement Ltd. and
others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 572 , in which the Supreme Court
has taken note of the notification dated 08.12.1977 published in
gazette India Extraordinary which is available on record as
Annexure-P/20 and has held that the State Government is also
competent to entertain the dispute in respect of the workman
working in the cement industry except in the case of mines and
quarries forming part of the cement industries because for the
workman working in the said industries, the Central Government
alone has jurisdiction. He further relies upon the decision of
Division Bench of the Andhra High Court passed in W.P.
No.33081/2014 on 08.03.2016 parties being Ultratech Cement
Limited and another vs. Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court,
Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu district AP and others , and submits
that the Division Bench of the said High Court has also dealt with
the same issue which is involved in the present case and also took
note of the notification dated 08.12.1977 and finally held that the
State Government has also jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in
relation to the workman working under the controlled industry and
also followed the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of
Yovan India Cement Employees Union (supra). Shri Verma
further submits that the petitioner/company nowhere stated that
they have their own mines and quarries and they are part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
16 WP-6080-2018
cement industry and in such a situation, the notification dated
08.12.1977 and the view taken by different High Courts and also
by the Supreme Court make the order of Labour Court, Satna
which is impugned in this petition, valid and justified. The
petition, according to him, is without any substance and deserves
to be dismissed.
13. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
14. However, after considering the submissions made by
Shri Adhikari and perusing the record, I am not convinced with
the stand taken by the petitioner that the petitioner/company is a
controlled industry and is having their units all over the India and
is established to close proximity of a mine, therefore, it is the
Central Government only which is the “appropriate Government”
and could entertain the dispute in relation to the respondent.
Neither before the Court below nor before this Court, the
petitioner tried to establish that the petitioner/company has its own
mines and quarries and it is a part of cement industry. There is no
pleading in that regard, but Shri Adhikari has tried to convince this
Court by saying that the cement company is established in close
proximity of a mine and quarry and the employees of the cement
company are also engaged in the mines and, therefore, if an
employee working in the mine at the relevant point of time when
he has to be superannuated, the age of retirement is 58 years butSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4985217 WP-6080-2018
similarly if the workman at the same time is working in the cement
company/industry has to be retired at the age of 60 years in view
of the State amendment on which the respondentworkman is
relying upon. However, this submission has no force for the
reason that the workman appointed by the petitioner/company
temporarily attached to perform duties in a mine situated in close
proximity of cement company, does not mean that the workman
becomes an employee of the said mine because that mine is not
owned by the cement company and is not a part of the cement
industry, therefore, his age of superannuation would be the same
that of workman working in the cement industry. On the contrary,
the submission made by the respondent is more convincing for the
reason that the respondent-workman appointed by the
petitioner/company is not an employee of mine and quarry and in
view of the Notification dated 08.12.1977 though the
petitioner/company is a controlled industry under the control of
the Central Government, but in view of the delegation of power to
the State Government to entertain the dispute in regard to the
workman working under the controlled industry, ergo, the State
Government is also an “appropriate Government”, therefore,
nothing illegal has been done by the State Government referring
the dispute of the respondent-workman raised before it.
15. Considering the decision of the Supreme Court passed in
case of Yovan India Cement Employees Union (supra) and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
18 WP-6080-2018
view taken therein as has been considered by this High Court in
case of Ashwani Kumar Singh (supra) quoting relevant portion
which is as under:-
“”Subsequently, another notification was published in the
Gazette of India Extraordinary dated December 8, 1977 wherein
the Government of India exercised its power under Section 39 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was notified that the
powers exercisable by Government of India under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to cement industry shall also be
exercisable by the State Governments, except in the case of mines
and quarries forming part of the cement industry where the Central
Government alone has jurisdiction. Thus both the Central
Government and State Governments have concurrent jurisdiction
in relation to cement industry under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, except in the case of mines and quarries forming part of the
cement industry. A true copy of said notification dated December
8, 1977 is annexed to this affidavit as Annexure R-II.”
The view taken by the Supreme Court left nothing uncertain
regarding competency of the State Government in relation to the
respondent-workman
16. Likewise, the Division Bench of the Andhra High Court
in case of Ultratech Cement Limited (supra), has dealt with the
same issue which was as under:-
“1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4985219 WP-6080-2018
Anantapuram has jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the
4th respondent/workman who was working in cement industry
which is notified as controlled industry?”
and made observation from paragraph-17 onward which are
as under:-
“17. In case of controlled industry the ‘appropriate
Government’ is the Central Government. The cement industry is a
controlled industry. Section 2-a (i) vests exclusive jurisdiction in
the Central Government in relation to Industrial dispute arising
from employment in various sectors mentioned therein including
Controlled Industry. Thus, in so far as cement industry is
concerned, Central Government is the appropriate Government
which is competent to deal with the matters arising out of
Industrial Disputes Act. However, section 39 of the Act vests
residuary power in the Central Government to delegate the powers
vested in the Central Government to the State Governments by
way of a General or Special Order with reference to the controlled
industry or other industries mentioned therein. In exercise of such
power Central Government issued notification in S.O.826(E) dated
08.11.1977 published in the Gazette on 08.12.1977 delegating
power to State Government with reference to Cement industry. By
virtue of this notification the power as exercisable by the Central
Government under Section 2 (a) (i) is now vested in the State
Government in so far as cement industry is concerned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
20 WP-6080-2018
(emphasis supplied)
18. The scope of such notification was considered by the
Supreme Court in Yovan’s case. The Government of Tamilnadu
issued notification on 23.09.1987 under Section 10 (1) (c) of the
Act referring the dispute between the Union and Management of
India Cements to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The
respondentCompany raised preliminary objection on the reference
by the State Government contending that the appropriate authority
in relation to the cement industry is the Central Government. The
said objection was accepted and the claim petition was dismissed.
The Supreme Court construed the notification dated 08.12.1977
and held that both Central and State Governments are appropriate
Governments under the Act and therefore, upheld the notification
issued by the Government of Tamilnadu. Thus on the same issue,
the Supreme Court has held that the State Government is also
appropriate Government to exercise power under the Industrial
Disputes Act concerning the cement industry.
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Workmen of Bagalkot Udyog Limiteds case, the
Government of Karnataka issued notification dated 29.08.1986
under Section 10(1) of the Act, prohibiting employment of
contract labour in cement industry. On a challenge made, learned
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside the said
notification holding that the State Government is not the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
21 WP-6080-2018
appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 10 (1) of
the Act.
20. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was of
the view that a delegate cannot acquire status equivalent to that of
a delegator because despite delegating its powers, the delegator is
never denuded of the same and delegator has an unrestricted right
to strip off the powers of its delegate. The Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court therefore was of the view that the State
Government cannot be treated as appropriate Government in
relation to an industrial dispute concerning the cement industry.
The Division Bench also sought to distinguish Yovan’s case, on
the ground that the question raised before the Supreme Court is
different and in the context of the said facts of the case, the
observations were made. The Karnataka High Court was of the
view that what was mentioned by the Supreme Court in Para 8 are
only observations.
21. In the cases before the Karnataka, Chattisgarh and
Patna High Courts, matters arose under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Reading of the judgment of
the Patna High Court would show that there is no similar
notification issued delegating power to the State Governments. In
fact the Patna High Court observed that there is no such provision
vested by the Act, 1970 to delegate. It appears that no similar
notification as issued under Section 39 of I.D Act was issued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
22 WP-6080-2018
under the Act, 1970. Thus all the three decisions have to be seen
in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, 1970. The said
decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand
22. On a true and proper construction of relevant provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, I am of the considered opinion that
once Central Government exercises power under Section 39 of the
Act and delegates the power vested in the Central Government to
the State Government, the State Government is equally competent
to exercise all the powers as vested in the Central Government by
the Act. Once power is validly delegated to the State Government,
it cannot be said that State Government cannot constitute
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of claims arising out of
employment in cement industry. The delegation is still valid and
such delegation is not under challenge.”
I have no reason to differ with the views taken by the
Supreme Court and various High Courts. The counsel for the
petitioners has also not produced or argued anything which would
compel me to go beyond the view already discussed above. On the
contrary, the respondents relied upon the view of the Supreme
Court in case of Yovan India Cement Employees Union (supra),
which fortified my view. Therefore, I am also of the opinion that
the State Government did nothing wrong to entertain the dispute
and referring the same to the Labour Court, Satna
17. So far as the contention raised by Shri Adhikari
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49852
23 WP-6080-2018
regarding Article 254 of the Constitution of India is concerned, I
do not find any inconsistency in the law made by the Parliament
and the State Legislature and, therefore, there would be
no application of Article 254 of the Constitution in the present
case for the reason which have been discussed above.
18. After considering the view taken by the Supreme Court
and also the High Court on which the respondent has placed
reliance, it is clear that the State Government can also be treated as
“appropriate Government” in case of employee working in the
petitioner/company which is undoubtedly a controlled industry.
Consequently, this Court finds substance in the submission made
by the counsel for the respondent and further finds that the Labour
Court, Satna has jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred to it by
the State Government and as such, the order/award does not call
for any interference for the aforesaid reasons.
19. As a result, the petitions are accordingly dismissed.”
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-07-2026
12:17:40
