1. Dispute regarding the classification of a government board as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically concerning Section 25-F. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.Mohan
Union Of India
Versus
Jainarainsingh
Case No. : 725 of 1994
Date of Decision : 2/9/94
A government board dedicated to ground water is not considered an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; therefore, the statutory requirements of Section 25-F regarding retrenchment do not apply.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - Definition of 'industry' - Whether a government board focused on ground water constitutes an industry - Held that such a board is not an industry - Consequently, the provisions of Section 25-F regarding conditions for retrenchment have no application.
(B) Employment - Sympathetic appointment - Length of service considered - Direction to appoint as a fresh candidate in a redesignated post - No claim for back wages in relation to earlier service rendered.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a tribunal's order which had held that a specific government board was an industry, thereby making the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act applicable to the respondent's service and termination.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the government board is not an industry, rendering the tribunal's contrary finding incorrect. While the appeal was allowed, the court directed the appellant to take a sympathetic attitude due to the respondent's length of service and appoint him as a fresh candidate to a redesignated post, without any claim for back wages.
Issues: Whether the government board constitutes an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the protections under Section 25-F are applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the organization does not fall within the legal definition of an 'industry', the statutory requirements and protections provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not applicable to the case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a government board constitutes an industry, thereby making the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applicable. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that the government board does not qualify as an industry, rendering the tribunal's contrary finding incorrect. (Para 2 )
4. Where an entity is not classified as an industry, the statutory protections and requirements under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, do not apply. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — entity held not to be an industry — respondent to be appointed as a fresh candidate without back wages. (Para 2 )
6. Does the Central Ground Water Board qualify as an industry?
No, the court held that the Central Ground Water Board is not an industry. (Para 2 )
7. What is the legal consequence if an entity is not considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
If an entity is not an industry, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will have no application. (Para 2 )
(1) DELAY condoned. Special leave granted.
(2) WE have heard both the learned counsel, for the Union of India (the appellant) and the respondent. We have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the central Ground Water Board is not an industry. The contrary finding rendered by the tribunal in the impugned order is incorrect. It follows Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will have no application. Accordingly, a the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. However, we may add that having regard to the length of service of the respondent, this is a fit case in which the appellant must take sympathetic attitude and appoint him as a fresh candidate as a Helper and his service is to reckon only from the date of his appointment. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said post has been redesignated as Technical Operator (Drilling). The appointment order should be issued on or before 31/3/1994. We make it clear that he shall have no claim for back wages in relation to the earlier service rendered by him.
