Bombay High Court: Four petitions were filed by Tata Memorial Centre challenging the decisions of the Industrial Court holding that the appropriate government for the Petitioner is the State Government. The petitioner questions the said findings recorded by the Industrial Court and contends that being an autonomous body, owned and controlled by the Central Government, the appropriate government for it is the Central Government. Sandeep V Marne, J., held that the appropriate government for Tata Memorial Centre is Central Government and sets aside the judgment and order dated 16-02-2022 passed by the Industrial Court in revision application as well as judgment and order dated 12-02-2022 passed in complaint.
Tata Memorial Hospital and Indian Cancer Research Centre were amalgamated into an institution named as Tata Memorial Centre, which was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also, as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The case revolves around Tata Memorial Hospital, a renowned healthcare institution in India. Tata Memorial Hospital has been the subject of legal scrutiny regarding its classification under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly concerning whether it falls under the authority of the Central Government. The matter stems from disputes raised by the Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union regarding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and appropriate government oversight. The Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union initiated legal action by filing complaints before the Labour Court and Industrial Court, questioning the jurisdiction of these bodies and the appropriate government under which Tata Memorial Hospital operates.
The Labour Court has held that the complaint filed by the Workers Union challenging the termination of its active Secretary, Mr. M.B. Chavan under Sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) to be not maintainable since the appropriate Government for the Petitioner-hospital is the Central Government. The said decision of the Labour Court has been reversed by the Industrial Court holding the complaint is maintainable as the appropriate government is the State Government. The Industrial Court has rejected petitioner’s objection and held that the appropriate government is the Central Government, and the complaints are maintainable. Thus, the petitioner seeks to challenge those orders passed by the Industrial Court.
Counsel for Union argued that Tata Memorial Hospital is effectively controlled by the Central Government, given its significant financial support and administrative oversight. The evidence presented included official statements indicating full funding and administrative control by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), along with documents illustrating the Central Government’s role in decision-making processes and governance structures of Tata Memorial Hospital. In contrast, Tata Memorial Hospital. contended that while it receives funding and oversight from the Central Government, it maintains significant autonomy in its operations. The institution emphasized its ability to generate revenue, determine service conditions, and make independent decisions, as outlined in its bye-laws and governance framework.
The Court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties to assess the extent of control and management exercised by the Central Government over Tata Memorial Hospital. It scrutinized documents indicating financial support, administrative directives, decision-making authority, and the composition of Tata Memorial Hospital ‘s governing council. The Court noted the distinction between “under the control of” and “controlled by” the Central Government, emphasizing that even autonomous bodies may still be subject to some degree of government control. It meticulously analyzed each piece of evidence to determine the nature and extent of Central Government involvement in Tata Memorial Hospital ‘s affairs.
The Court remarked that “Though Tata Memorial Centre is not ‘under control’ of Government of India, the Central Government undoubtedly exercises control over Tata Memorial Centre. Tata Memorial Centre is free from the control of the Central Government. It receives grants from the Central Government, most of its operations are carried out from the grants received from the Central Government. Its accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Several decisions qua its operations as well as service conditions of employees are taken by the Central Government. There is a heavy presence of officials of Central Government on the Governing Council of Tata Memorial Centre. The inescapable conclusion that emerges is that the Central Government exercises control over Tata Memorial Centre. In my view, therefore TMC would be covered by the provisions of amended definition of the term ‘appropriate government’ under Section 2(a)(i) as it satisfies the conditions of ‘autonomous bodies controlled by the Central Government’.”
The Court further remarked that “What is used between the two words “owned” and “controlled” is ‘or’. Therefore, it is not necessary to enquire whether TMC is ‘owned’ by the Central Government. Even if it is ‘controlled’ by the Central Government, it would satisfy the test for determination of Central Government as its appropriate Government.”
The Court concluded that Tata Memorial Hospital falls under the control of the Central Government. Despite its autonomy in certain areas, Tata Memorial Hospital’s substantial reliance on Central Government funding, oversight mechanisms, and decision-making structures indicated a level of control sufficient to classify it under the Industrial Disputes Act as an autonomous body controlled by the Central Government.
[Tata Memorial Centre v. Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 869, decided on 20-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Agnes Careneiro and Mr. Vaibhav Shah i/by. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashok D. Shetty with Mr. Shailesh K. More and Ms. Rita Kirit Joshi for the Respondents.
