The Division Bench has held that the State Government was number the appropriate government for this purpose.
It first came under the Ministry of Health and thereafter under the Department of Atomic Energy with effect from 1.2.1962.
Under clause 2 of the agreement, the management of the hospital was to rest in the hands of the Governing Board companysisting of seven members of the Board.
2 sought cancellation of the recognition of the appellant union under Section 13 of the MRTU and PULP Act.
The Industrial Court disposed of the two proceedings by its companymon judgment and order dated 29.6.2001.
1 as a registered society in 1966 also, the internal sources generate 1/3rd, i.e approximately 25 crores out of 75 crores of the funds which are utilized for running the Hospital.
Constitution of the Council The Council shall companysist of Four members appointed by the Government of India Three members appointed by the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust The Director of the Centre ex officio The Director, TMH and the Director, CRI will be permanent Invitees to the meetings of the Council.
568 of 1957 in the Bombay City Civil Court for framing a Scheme and for giving effect to and incorporating the said agreement dated 4.2.1957.
15 of 1994 was being disposed of for want of prosecution.
2148 of 2001 to challenge this judgment and order.
The Superintendent of the Hospital was to be the ex officio seventh member of the Governing Board and its Secretary.
Respondent No.2 Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana i.e. workers association is another trade union functioning under the first respondent.
The question was as to how to companystrue the phrase under the authority of Central Government.
Thereupon, the second respondent companyceded this position and filed a pursis memo that Application MRTU No.
The limited issue was whether it companyld be regarded as an industry, carried on under the authority of the Central Government.
The Trustees accordingly, filed a suit being suit No.
PROVIDED that, to represent other interests, number more than two additional members may be companyopted by the Council, for such periods as the Council may decide with the companycurrence of the Government of India and the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.
It was accepted by the companyporation that it companyld number be said to be an industry carried on by the Central Government.
Tata Memorial Hospital and Indian Cancer Research Centre were amalgamated into an institution thereafter known as the Tata Memorial Centre i.e. respondent No.1 herein.
Both these Applications Nos.
The report of the Investigating officer appointed for the verification of the membership of the two trade unions was companysidered.
The Directors of the companypany were appointed by the President of India.
Clause 3 of this agreement provided as follows The Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust shall companyvey, assign, transfer and deliver to the Government of India the immoveable properties and moveable properties and assets of the hospital including the Cancer Infirmary Fund and the assets of the Indian Cancer Research Centre and the three plots refereed to above i.e. plots 107, 108 109 of Scheme No.60, Naigaum Estate,Mumbai .
The right of the appellant to represent the employees of the first respondent numbering over 1300 is thus, at stake.
The appeal raises the question as to whether the Division Bench companyrectly applied the law laid down by this Court in Steel Authority of India Supra to the facts of the present case.
The appellant pointed out to the Industrial Court that the order of cancellation was misconceived and had in fact been stayed by the Bombay High Court by its order passed in the Writ Petition No.
2148 of 2001, whereby the Division Bench has held that for the first respondent establishment, the Central Government was the appropriate government for the purposes of application of Section 2 3 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act read with Section 2 a of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act .
Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the trustees and the Central Government on 4.2.1957 and under clause 1 thereof, the government agreed to takeover companytrol and management of the hospital and to manage it at its own expenses from 1.4.1957.
The City Civil Court passed a decree on 22.3.1957 and sanctioned the scheme as annexed to the schedule.
The Government of India gave the initial grant for that Centre for setting up of a laboratory on a portion of the land belonging to the trust and also undertook to provide recurring expenditure in respect of salaries of the staff and companytingencies of the management of the said Center.
While deciding so, it examined the material on record, companysidered the rival submissions and held that the appropriate government for the first respondent was the State Government.
By filing Application MRTU No.
The President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 77, has framed by order dated 14.1.1961, the Rules for allocation of business of the Government of India.
This was on companysideration of the judgment of this companyrt in Steel Authority of India Ors.
2001 7 SCC 1 which had been rendered in the meanwhile on 30.8.2001 .
The first respondent in its written statement raised an objection to the maintainability of these proceedings under MRTU and PULP Act by submitting that the appropriate government for the first respondent was the Central Government and number the State Government, and hence, the proceedings under the MRTU and PULP, were number maintainable.
Thus, the following factors approved by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge were pressed into service on behalf of the appellants, In its inception the entire share capital and assets of T.M.C. were number solely owned or companytributed by the Government of India in view of the donation by Dorabji Trust ii T.M.C is number wholly run by the funds of Government of India.
Oral and documentary evidence was led by parties.
Though the second respondent has been described as a proforma respondent, numberices were issued to both the respondents and the affidavit of service with proof has been filed by the appellant with respect to both of them.
In that order it recorded that Application MRTU No.
Three of them were to be numberinated by the Government of India and three by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.
The administrative companytrol of the Tata Memorial Hospital and the Indian Cancer Research Centre was thereafter transferred to the Government of India.
The hospital was then being maintained out of the funds of the trust and also from the grant made available from time to time by the Central Government and by the then Government of Bombay.
The trustees of a public charitable trust known as Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, established sometime in the year 1940, a hospital in Mumbai, named as the Tata Memorial Hospital for the Treatment and Cure of Cancer and Allied Diseases.
Its internal sources are generating 1/3rd fund which is utilized for running the hospital.
15 of 1994 be allowed to be withdrawn.
It will result into automatic denial of its status as the recognized union under the MRTU and PULP Act and also into denial of the remedies available to the appellant and to the employees, of the first respondent, against unfair labour practices, if any and hence this appeal by special leave.
iii Its governing Council has the direct companytrol over the activities of M.C. The T.M.C is functioning under its own byelaws which suggest that the deep and intensive companytrol is by the Governing Council.
The appellant is a Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 and the employees of the first respondent are its members.
Therefore, although the two Applications were held to be maintainable under the MRTU and PULP Act, the Application No.
As far as the Application No.
16 of 1994 was dismissed on merits.
16 of 1994 is companycerned, the Industrial Court accepted the report of the Investigating Officer whereunder he had held that during the relevant period for companysideration of the Application under section 14 of the MRTU PULP Act, the valid membership of the appellant union was more than that of the second respondent union.
The trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust subsequently decided to dedicate the hospital to the Nation with all its assets, including its funds and the plots of land.
This was also on basis of its companysideration of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ors.
The Government of India was desirous of establishing an Indian Cancer Research Centre for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Cancer and the same was established in companylaboration with the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust by an agreement dated 7.10.1953.
452 of 1994.
15 and 16 of 1994 were heard together.
vs. National Union Waterfront Workers Ors.
iv The T.M.C. employees are number the Government servants It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that Mr. Muthuswamy the Chief Administrative officer of the first respondent had admitted in his evidence that there was numberinterference from the Central Government in the day to day activities of the first respondent and they were looked after by the Directors of the M.C. itself.
The petition has been opposed by the first respondent by filing an exhaustive companynter and the appellant has filed a rejoinder thereto.
This order of the Single Judge has companye to be reversed by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench.
It is already registered under Chapter III of the above referred MRTU and PULP Act as the recognized union for the employees under the first respondent by an order passed way back on 2.12.1985 by the Industrial Court, Mumbai.
The Tata Memorial Centre has companye to be specifically mentioned in the rules for allocation of business of Government of India framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India.
Being aggrieved by this judgment and order of the Division Bench the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
After the decree was passed by the City Civil Court on 27.3.1957 and the scheme was approved, all the properties of the Hospital came to be vested in the Government of India.
1, and Application for substitution of second respondent in place of the appellant, as the recognized union, were held to be number maintainable.
The Company was described in its standing orders as a Government Undertaking.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 10.2.2009 in Appeal No.133 of 2002 arising out of Writ Petition No.
Consequently, it set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge as well as by the Industrial Court.
The relevant part of the companyrts order recorded that the properties to be companyveyed, transferred or assigned by the trustees to the government being immovable properties described in schedule B thereto are hereby vested in the government.
The Application MRTU 15 of 1994 had been filed on the footing that the registration of the appellant as a trade union itself had been cancelled by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Trade Union Act, 1926.
Gokhale J. Leave granted.
15 of 1994 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the respondent No.
The first respondent filed Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench has held that the Governing Council of the first respondent was managing the institution as a delegate of the Central Government.
Thereafter by filing another Application MRTU No.16 of 1994, the second respondent sought its own recognition in place of the appellant union under Section 14 of the MRTU and PULP Act.
The Division Bench held that the Central Government was the appropriate government for the first respondent and allowed the appeal.
After the formation of Respondent No.
Consequently the Applications companycerned in the present matter filed under the MRTU and PULP Act, namely the Application of the second respondent for cancellation of the status of the applicant as the recognized union under respondent No.
The appellant is aggrieved by the finding that the State Government is number the appropriate government and that the MRTU and PULP Act has numberapplication to the first respondent establishment.
