BY AD v. N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY

NEW DELHI, INDIA, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER MR. SHAILENDER CHAUDHARY, HEAD LEGAL, CE-01, IMPORT BUILDING 2, INTERNATIONAL CARGO TERMINAL, INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI-110001. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. KERALA CIVIL AVIATION WORKERS CONGRESS, REG. NO. 07-38-19911, INTUC OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA-683101, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT V.P. GEORGE. BY ADVS. SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY() THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.240/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 5 JUDGMENT [WA Nos.240/2021, 1354/2021] Amit Rawal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two writ appeals against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 18.05.2020 rendered in W.P.(C)No.3371/2019.

2. 1st respondent/petitioner a private limited company, holder of Concession Agreement entered with Cochin International Airport Limited (hereinafter called ‘CIAL’ for short) for providing Ground Handling facility at the Airport, was served with notices by the State Government regarding the non-compliance of various provisions of the Acts, which according to them were within the domain of the Central Government. Learned Single Judge after noticing the case law at length on this point, provisions of Airport Authority Act and various provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Maternity Benefit Act, Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Industrial Dispute Act, and WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 6 Payment of Bonus Act, allowed the writ petition to the extent that for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Dispute Act, and other Central Acts, it would be the Central Government and for the purpose of other Acts like Maternity Act, Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, State Government would be the authority. The Labour Commissioner-respondent No.6 in the writ petition on receipt of the representation of the workers union, would decide the grievances of the members of the Union with regard to the applicability of the laws like Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, etc., for which the State would have the power. W.A.240/21 has been filed by the State against the aforesaid directions whereas the other writ appeal No.1354/21 has been filed on behalf M/s.Inter Globe Aviation (Indigo) represented by its Associate General Council, by seeking leave of this Court, for, they were not impleaded or party in the writ petition. WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 7

3. The grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner before the Single Bench, in brief, is enumerated as under: It is an Airport service known as CELEBI Airport Service, a licensed Ground Handling service having registered office at Delhi. The Company had entered into an agreement with CIAL which invited tenders for appointment of second and third Ground Handling services for providing third party Ground Handling services at Cochin International Airport. Clause 1.4 of the terms and conditions of the tender dealt with the definitions and abbreviations which would mean all laws brought into force and effected by Government of India, Government of Kerala including the local bodies and statutory agencies, rules, regulations, notifications made thereunder and judgments decrees injunctions, writs and orders of any other court, as may be in force shall be applicable to the tender and services rendered under this tender. It would also include the laws, rules, regulations, directives etc., made by Ministry of Civil Aviation, Director General of Civil Aviation WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 8 (DGCA), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) other statutory agencies. The Ground Handling Agency was given an abbreviation as GHA which would mean the successful bidder who is awarded the contract for providing third party Ground Handling services at Airport. Clause 8 of the aforementioned Concession Agreement deals with the responsibilities of GHA and CIAL. Besides all other facilities, the services excluded from the purview of GHA was security services at airlines, aircraft engineering services, cargo and mail acceptance, delivery, handling inside the cargo terminals, warehouses, flight kitchen, passengers seating arrangement at General Concourse of Terminal/Security Hold and Lounges in the security hold, provision and management of hand baggage trolleys for passengers, refuelling of aircrafts; with respect to VVIP special flights, CIAL would have the right to determine which of the Ground Handling Agency will carry out the Ground Handling services for such persons. Clause 9.17 provided clause of manpower – responsibility of GHA and Clause 9.17.6 imposes a condition WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 9 on GHA to indemnify CIAL against all claims, damages or compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act or any other Central or State Government Labour Laws for the time being in force as a consequence of any accident or injury to any workmen or other persons during the course of the Ground Handling services and also against all costs, expenses or charges of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of such accident or injury. Clause

9.20.2 which is relevant and important for the adjudication of the lis, reads as under: “The GHA shall register with respective authorities as are required by the labour and other laws GHA shall remit the PF, ESI and such contributions as envisaged by these Acts and copy of all such remittances (esp. PF & ESI) shall be submitted to CIAL as directed.”

4. The agreement imposes a condition upon GHA to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the related labour laws (central/state) with a condition that their employees shall not be deemed to be employees of the CIAL. Respondent-petitioner was providing services to various WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 10 airlines and were aggrieved of the receipt of the notices Exts.P3 and P4 on behalf of the District Labour Officer, Enforcement, Ernakulam for non-compliance of the provisions of the following Acts:

1. Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and

5. Festival Holidays) Act, 1958. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960.

5. The aforementioned notices were assailed in this Court on various grounds much less by taking the assistance of the provisions of the Airport Authority Act and the judgments on the point. The stand of the Central Government on the aforementioned proceedings, as per the counter affidavit, had been that appropriate Government under the Industrial Dispute Act, Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, Minimum Wages Act and Payment Wages Act WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 11 would be the Central Government and as regards the Maternity Act and Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, would be the State Government.

6. Appellant/State supported the impugned notices. In the counter affidavit, had taken the aid of the provisions of Section 12 of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, (hereinafter called 'Act 55 of 1994’ for short), definition of Private Airport 2(nn), Section 37 and Aircraft Act, 1934. By laying reliance to the aforementioned provisions, it was pleaded that the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2018, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 42 of the Act 55 of 1994, defines “apron” under Section 2(a) and under Section 2(b) defines “ground handling” which would mean a services necessary for aircraft’s arrival at, and departure from, an airport other than air traffic control and also includes:-

1. Ramp handling including activities specified in schedule-I.

2. Traffic handling including activities as specified WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 12 in schedule-II

3. Any other activities (emphasis supplied) specified by the Central Government from time to time. Section 2.(c) defines “Ground Handling Agency” which would mean an entity established for the purpose of providing ground handling service at an airport and security cleared by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security duly appointed by the airport operator.

7. By taking the aid of the Regulation 2 of Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2018, it was averred that the GHA is to be appointed by the airport operator cleared by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. Kerala Government having a control over the CIAL being the single largest stakeholder and Chief Minister of Kerala is the Ex-officio Chairman. Thus for all intends and purposes, Ground Handling Service would not be an air transport service as defined in Section 2(e) of the Airport Authority of India Act, whereas it would be falling under the WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 13 definition 2(b) of Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2018. The aforementioned regulations were issued in supersession of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2017. CIAL airport operator also obtained a certificate of registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, as well as under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, vide Ext.R4(b).

8. On analysis of rival contentions and case law cited at Bar, learned Single Judge in paragraph 51, allowed the writ petition in the following manner: “51. The statement filed by respondents is silent with reference to jurisdiction or authority by referring to which impugned notices are issued under KSCE Act. Hence keeping in perspective the discussion on the appropriate Government in the preceding paragraphs and the finding thereon that Central Government is the appropriate Government vis-à-vis CELEBI/petitioner insofar as Ground Handling Service is concerned, the notices impugned in Exts. P1, P3 and P4 are set aside as illegal and without jurisdiction. The points are answered accordingly. Consequently, the writ petition is ordered as follows: WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 14 (i) Central Government is the appropriate Government visà-vis CELEBI/petitioner insofar as Ground Handling Services are concerned under ID Act, PW Act and MW Act. (ii) The members of 7th respondent/Union are canvassing for redressal of their grievances for considerable ength of time, without conceivable result thereon. 7th respondent is given liberty to bring to the notice of 6th respondent their grievances or the disputes with the management of petitioner by enclosing a copy of this judgment within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. (iii) 6th respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of petition/representation moves and decides at his end as per law within six weeks thereafter. 6th respondent while examining the alleged grievances of members of 7th respondent Union, acts in accordance with applicable law and upon putting petitioner on notice. Writ petition ordered as indicated above. No Costs.”

9. Sri.N.Manoj Kumar, learned State Attorney, in support of the intra court appeal has raised the following submissions laying challenge to judgment of Single Bench: Learned Single Judge has not applied the ratio decidendi WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 15 culled out in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Delhi International Airport (DIAL) Ltd. And Others v. Union of India and Others [(2011) 12SCC 449]. In fact, the entire gamut/genesis of the judgment had been on the definition of 'airport services' defined under Section 2(e) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, whereas it should have been under the Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Service) Regulations, 2018, defining 'ground handling services' under section 2(c). The judgment of the Supreme Court was totally on a different set of facts as the question involved in the Delhi International Airport (DIAL) case supra was to decide the appropriate Government as far as DIAL was concerned. The conclusion arrived at was that the DIAL would be under the control of Central Government would not mutatis mutandis, be applicable to the cases of CIAL.

10. Delhi International Airport, unlike CIAL was established, owned and operated by the Central Government till it was leased out to the DIAL by the Airport Authority of WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 16 India by exercising the powers under Section 12 of the 1994 Act.

11. CIAL is a public limited company incorporated to set up and to run a private international airport at Kochi. The Central Government would not have any control and power over it but would be brought under the fold of the local State Laws Act of the Government of Kerala. Airport Authority Act was amended in 2003 to enable the establishment and operation of airport under lease/licence arrangements or under different modes. The object was to improve the standard of services and facilities at airports and a new Section 12A was inserted which enable the Airports Authority of India to establish airport or assist in the establishment of private airports and also to lease the airport premises to private operators with prior approval of the Central Government. Thus some of the functions of the Airports Authority of India can be assigned to lessees subject to exceptions with regard to aircraft services, security etc.

12. Airport authority of India or Central Government WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 17 can exercise only very limited powers on private airports only to the extent of air traffic service. Section 1(3)(aa) of the Airports Authority Act, 1994, applies to private airports only in a limited manner ie., 'Air Traffic Service', which is distinct and separate from expression 'Air Transport Service'.

13. Section 37 of the Airports Authority Act, 1994, provides power to issue directions to the airports in respect of conditions provided therein.

14. Ground Handling services cannot be equated with the term 'Air Transport Services' defined under section 2(e) of the Airport Authority of India Act, which would mean any service for any kind of remuneration whatsoever for the transport by air of persons, mail or any other thing, animate or inanimate, whereas in the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation, 2018 the 'Ground Handling' is defined under 2(b) and 'Ground Handling Agency' as defined under 2(c) would mean an entity established for the purpose of providing ground handling service at the airport and the security cleared by the Bureau of Civil Aviation WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 18 Security and thus, submitted that impugned notices for non- compliance of the provisions of the Act referred to in Exts.P3 and P4 was wholly justified.

15. On the other hand, Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Harish Gopinath countered the arguments of Mr.N.Manoj Kumar by supporting the findings rendered by the Single Bench and submitted that the judgment is purely based upon the provisions of the particular Acts ie., Payment of Wages Act and Minimum Wages Act. Though the 'appropriate Government' under Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, defines the State Government but there was an amendment with effect from 01.09.2016 whereby all the activities were brought under the purview of Central Government except two Acts, Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960, Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 and Maternity Benefit Act. No doubt, any violation of the provisions would be under the domain of the Central Government on plain and simple reading of the WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 19 definition. Though the respondent/petitioner was not properly advised to obtain registration under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act as no activity defined under the provisions are undertaken for the purpose of providing Ground Handling Service. Private airports cannot be brought out of the purview/applicability of the Airport Authority Act. It is in that background, the amendment was caused by inserting the expression 'private airport'. Respondent/petitioner is not the only agreement holder providing the Ground Handling Services as various other airlines had engaged the ground staff for the purpose of management, control, regulation including the Ground Handling Services. In other words, there were two other such Ground Handling Agencies operated at the behest and directions of the private airlines. The ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, for, the State Government would not have any control or power to initiate any steps in respect of industrial dispute between the WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 20 contractor and employees discharging the duties of handling services.

16. Ministry of Law and Justice promulgated Act No.27 of 2008 namely the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India Act, 2008, meant to provide for the establishment of an Airports Economic Regulatory Authority by establishing Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate disputes and dispose of the appeals for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the aforementioned Act, 'aeronautical services' has been defined under Section 2(a) which would mean services provided for ground safety services at the airport and landing, housing or parking of the aircraft. All these factors if looked into cumulatively, there cannot be any fault or ambiguity in the judgment of Single Bench quashing notices issued by the officers of the State Government with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Dispute Act and other laws where Central Government is defined as the WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 21 appropriate Government vis-à-vis the other Acts ie., Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and Maternity Benefit Act. There was no such violation and if at all there would have been, a representation had already been submitted and directions have been issued to decide the same.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

16. The law with regard to the power of the State Government trenching over the Central Government or vice versa has always been a matter of consideration and ponderance in various judgments of Supreme Court and this Court by noticing the provisions in Entry-I and Entry-II including Entry-III in the concurrent list of seventh schedule of the Constitution of India. Airport authority of India Act, 1994, defines 'airport transport service' under Section 2(e) which reads as under: 2(e)”air transport service” means any service, for any kind of remuneration, whatsoever, for the transport by air of persons, mail or any other thing, animate or inanimate, WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 22 whether such service relates to a single flight or series of flights; It would mean any service, for any kind of remuneration, whatsoever, for the transport by air of persons, mail or any other thing (emphasis supplied) animate or inanimate whether such services relates to a single flight or series of flight. The expression airport transport service is akin to the services provided by the Ground Handling staff for, the Concession Agreement exclusively takes out from its fold any responsibility of the CIAL vis-a-vis the employees of Ground Handling Agency. The expression 'private airport' was added by inserting Section 2(nn) with effect from 01.07.2004. The same reads as under: “2(nn)”private airport” means an airport owned, developed or managed by- (i) any person or agency other than the Authority or any State Government, or (ii) any person or agency jointly with the Authority or any State Government or both where the share of such person or agency, as the case may be, in the assets of the private airport is more than fifty per cent.” WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 23 It would mean an airport owned, developed and managed by any person or agency other than the authority or any State Government or any person or agency jointly with the Authority or any State Government or both where the share of such person or agency may be in the assets of the private airport. Regulation would mean the regulation under this Act.

17. Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulation was brought into force in 2018 ie., with effect from 26.10.2018 as per the powers conferred under Section 42 of the Airport Authority of India Act 1994. In sections 2(b) and 2(c) defines Ground Handling and Ground Handling Agency respectively. The same reads as under: “2(b) ground handling” means services necessary for an aircraft’ arrival and departure from, an airport other than air traffic control and it includes- (i) ramp handling including activities as specified in Schedule I; (ii) traffic handling including activities as specified in Schedule II; and (iii) any other activity specified by the Central Government from time to time; 2(c) ”Ground Handling Agency” means an entity, with WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 24 distinct and independent existence at the airport established for the purpose of providing ground handling service at an airport and security cleared by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and duly appointed by the airport operator.

18. The aforementioned definitions were incorporated in order to wriggle out of the confusion with regard to the air transport services defined under the Airports Authority Act, 1994 with clear and simple meaning that GHA entities established for the purpose of providing Ground Handling Service at airport and security cleared by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security duly appointed by the airport operator with a further stipulation that the services would mean from the arrival of aircraft, departure, ramp handling, traffic handling and any other activities specified by the Central Government.

19. The dispute as noted in the judgment cited supra Delhi International Airport (DIAL) was with regard to applicability of notification dated 26.07.2004 issued by the Central Government under Section 10A of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting the WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 25 employment of the contract labour of trolley retrievers in the establishment of Airport Authority of India at Indiragandhi International Airport and Domestic Airport of Delhi to be applicable to Delhi International Airport. The workers union had preferred a writ petition for seeking the implementation of the notification for absorption of their services under the purview of the Act which was not being done. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by holding that the establishment of the airport authority is no longer in existence and changed. Therefore the notification dated

26.07.2004 cannot be applied for new entity DIAL and the appropriate Government shall have the power to issue fresh notifications. During pendency of the latest Patent Appeal, Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India passed an order that the appropriate Government for DIAL would be the Central Government. The aforementioned order was assailed by the Airport Authority of India vide different writs. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court and question raised was who would be the appropriate authority WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 26 for Delhi International Airport Limited under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Industrial Dispute Act and whether the notification dated 26.07.2004 would be applicable to DIAL and issued by the Central Government, would not be the appropriate Government for DIAL etc. On analysis of all the provisions of the Act, in paragraph 85, following reasons were assigned in disposing of the appeal. The same are extracted hereinbelow:

85. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the written submissions filed by them. In our considered view, the Central Government is the appropriate government for DIAL for the following reasons - (i) DIAL could not have entered into a contract with AAI without approval of the Central Government according to the mandate of Section 12A of the AAI Act. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that DIAL functions "under the authority" of the Central Government; (ii) AAI clearly acts under the authority of the Central Government and DIAL acts under the authority of AAI because of its contract with DIAL. Then it can be logically WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 27 stated that DIAL works under the authority of the Central Government; (iii) The Central Government has given AAI responsibility for overseeing the airports. To fulfil its obligations, AAI contracted with DIAL. However, it is clear that DIAL's work "concerns" AAI, if DIAL does not perform its work properly or adequately, then AAI will be breaching its statutory obligation and would be responsible for the consequences. (iv) AAI is under an obligation to follow the directions of the Central Government and if DIAL has admittedly assumed those obligations through the OMDA, then DIAL is presumably also obligated to follow such directions. Again, a contrary interpretation would allow AAI to circumvent the Central Government's exercise of authority over its work merely by contracting it out to third party (DIAL). (v) Clause 5.1 of the OMDA specifically notes that the "rights and obligations associated with the operation and management of the Airport would stand transferred" to DIAL. If AAI was admittedly obligated to follow the 26th July, 2004 notification and DIAL has assumed all of AAI's obligations, then DIAL must also be obligated to follow the notification. In other words, the notification issued by the Central Government is equally binding on DIAL. (vi) Holding the 26th July, 2004 notification inapplicable to DIAL would mean that the Government would have to issue separate notification every time AAI contracts with a WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 28 third party. This would clearly violate the basic objects and reasons of CLRAA. (vii) The security of contract labour working for AAI envisaged, a law cannot be made to depend on the private sector. If the legislature had found it fit to specifically include AAI as an enumerated industry under the ID Act, it is extremely unlikely that it would have intended for AAI to be able to circumvent the Central Government orders by contracting with private parties. (viii) The privatization of the airports does not mean that the "appropriate government" cannot be the Central Government. According to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of SAIL, the definition of `establishment' in the CLRAA takes in its fold purely private undertakings...".Concerns about privatization are, therefore, unfounded. (ix) Under Section 12(2) of the AAI Act, AAI is obliged to provide air traffic service and air transport service at the airport. DIAL admits that AAI has transferred all of its responsibilities at the airports with the exception of certain reserved functions. Since industries concerning air transport service function under the authority of the Central Government, and since AAI has transferred its "air transport service" responsibilities to DIAL, the Central Government must be held to be the appropriate Government for DIAL. (x) The OMDA makes it clear that AAI maintains ultimate responsibility for the airports. The fact that DIAL was WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 29 transferred only a portion of AAI's work which DIAL only has incomplete control over as well as the fact that DIAL meets the definition of a contractor under the CLRA Act further suggests that DIAL is nothing more than a contractor for AAI establishment. That being the case, notification dated 26th July, 2004 directed at AAI establishment must also apply to DIAL. (xi) The contention of DIAL that it would not be bound by the obligation of AAI establishment would lead to absurd consequences. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has rightly pointed out that every time a fresh agreement is entered into, the entire process of getting a notification issued by the appropriate government in relation to the same work of trolley retrieval and with the same establishment via-a-vis such private player must be repeated. But this interpretation would defeat the rights of the workmen which are meant to be protected by the CLRAA. (xii) In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has correctly held that the obligation flowing from the said notification under Section 10(1) CLRAA should continue to bind every private player that steps into the shoes of AAI.”

20. The learned single Bench noticing the provisions of the Act, definition of services by taking the assistance of Black’s Law Dictionary as well as in the regulations of 2018 WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 30 and Act, arrived at a finding in favour of the petitioner which do not suffer from any illegality. The argument that the transport services would bring into its fold the local Acts and other Acts and the power for implementation would not be of the Central but of the State Government exclusively, in view of the findings rendered in paragraph 85 and paragraph 51 of the Single Bench, do not merit acceptance. In both the judgments, by taking note of definition of appropriate Government, it has been consistently held that the appropriate Government would be for implementation of Industrial Dispute Act, payment of Bonus Act, Minimum Wages Act vide amendment 01.09.2016, Payment of Wages Act which conferred the powers for implementation of laws on the Central Government and not the State Government. For non-compliance of the other provisions referred to in the impugned notices, parties have been given chance to appear before the competent authority and decide in accordance with law. The aforementioned ratio in our considered view is the most innocuous and cannot be at any stage, be said to WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 31 be onerous upon the State for implementation of the laws empowering the State Government. For the reason aforementioned we do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgment of Single Bench. We uphold the findings, both writ appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that the State Government would have the control to seek the implementation of only those local laws which empowers them strictly by the definition of appropriate Government, nothing beyond. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- C.S. SUDHA JUDGE WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 32 APPENDIX OF WA 1354/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 24/12/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.36247/2020 & IA NO.15612/2020. TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/10/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.4592/2020. TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 09/05/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN WMP NOS.14212/14221/2019 IN WP NO. 14150 & 14155/2019. WA NOs.240 & 1354 OF 2021 33 APPENDIX OF WA 240/2021 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DOCUMENT IN TENDER NUMBER CIAL/GH/GHA-01/2016