Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 993
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, G.ROHINI, GHULAM MOHAMMED, R.M.BAPAT
NATIONAL REMOTE SENSING AGENCY, HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDITIONAL Labour Court, Hyd - Respondent
Decided On : 08-21-02
Headnote:
Civil Matter - Civil Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2-A section 2 (a) (i), Section 2 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Writ petition – Seeking for Compension - Petitioner-Management filed a detailed counter opposing claim of workmen for their reinstatement into service and inter alia pleaded that petitioner-Management is not an industry within meaning of Section 2 (j) of Act appropriate Government in respect of petitioner-Management under section 2 (a) (i) is Central Government and so petition under Section 2-A (2) of Act, which is an amendment made and applicable by State of Andhra Pradesh is not applicable to workmen of petitioner-Management - Petitioner-Management insisted that said two points were required to be decided as preliminary points before entering into merits of case - Tribunal accordingly heard parties and decided same as preliminary points - Tribunal took view that petitioner- management is an industry and state Government is appropriate government - Petitioner- Management that it is not an industry and Industrial Disputes Act has no application - Hence, workmen cannot file an application before Labor Court under Section 2-A of Andhra Pradesh amendment to Industrial Disputes Act - It is also contended that appropriate government is Central Government and not State Government as defined under Section 2 (a) of Act and hence appropriate Government has to constitute a Labour Court for adjudication of Industrial disputes relating to matters specified in Second Schedule and as in this case labour Court (first respondent herein) constituted by State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain Industrial dispute - Learned single Judge after noticing earlier judgment of a Division bench of this Court in and Batch, and subsequent judgment - Petitioner-Management can be treated as an industry within meaning of that term as defined under section 2 (j) of Act, felt that it is appropriate that issues that arise for consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions shall have to be dealt with by a Larger Bench to give a quietus on issues at this court level - Division Bench accordingly referred this batch of writ petitions to larger Bench - Matters are listed before us for re-consideration and resolution of issues that are raised in this batch of writ petitions - Petitioner-Management contends that petitioner-Management is not an industry within meaning of that term as defined under Section 2 (j) of Act and, therefore , provisions of Act are not applicable to resolve disputes, if any, between, petitioner-Management and its employees - Employees working in petitioner- management (NRSA) cannot be characterized as workmen within meaning of provisions of Act - It is submitted that NRSA is a research organization and all its activities are carried on without any profit motive - Learned senior Counsel further contends that petitioner-organisation is an extended arm of Department of Defence, Government of India - Functions and duties entrusted to petitioner-organisation by department of Defence and discharge of same by it are sovereign in their nature - Sovereign functions cannot be regarded as an industrial activity - It is also submitted that activities of NRSA are carried on under authority of Central government and in relation to any industrial Dispute concerning it, Central government alone is the appropriate government - It is Central Government that has to constitute Labour Court/ tribunal under Section 7 of Act by a notification and all disputes between petitioner-Management and its employees may have to be resolved only by such labour Court/tribunal constituted by central Government - Additional labour Court-cum-Additional Industrial tribunal constituted by State government has no jurisdiction to entertain dispute - Held, court view that definition of expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the clear Act - Answer to question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of Industrial disputes Act; if (i) Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein economine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under authority of Central government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then Central Government will be appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, government of State in which that other establishment is situated, will be appropriate Government - Central government for purpose of Article 12 of Constitution of India. But same is not a part of either Department of Defence or department of Space - It is an autonomous body registered under Societies registration Act - It is not a Central government Company/undertaking concerned or any Central Government undertaking concerned included as such economine - Its industrial activity is not carried on by or under authority of Central government - There is no such statute conferring any such authority by Central government on petitioner-Organisation - Court Nothing is placed before us in order to show that there is a relationship of principal and agent between Central Government and petitioner-Organisation - Nor is it a specified controlled industry - It is a society registered under Societies Registration act having its own General Body and managing Committee to manage its affairs - It does not require any specific authority of Government of India to carry on its day-to-day activities - It is not as if Central government granted or conferred or delegated any of its powers to enable to carry on its activities - It is, therefore, dear that NRSA does not carry on its activities under authority of central Government - Establishment is constituted and located in0 State of Andhra Pradesh and all its industrial activities are carried on within State of Andhra Pradesh only - Court hold that appropriate Government in relation to petitioner-Organisation is government of Andhra Pradesh - Court view that taken by a learned single Judge of this court in R. Sreenivasa Rao v. Labour Court as affirmed in and Batch, by a division Bench of this court holding to be an industry within the meaning of that term as defined in Sec. 2 (j) of the Act does not require any reconsideration - Court accordingly confirm view taken by this court in said decision. - Writ petition Dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is: "whether the National Remote Sensing agency is an industry as defined in section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?" factual Matrix:
( 2 ) IN order to decide the said question, we may have to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of these writ petitions and the events leading to the reference by a division Bench of this Court to a Larger bench for resolution of the issue: the respondents in this batch of writ petitions claiming to be the workmen in the petitioner-Management invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Industrial tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, hyderabad under Section 2-A (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act") seeking their reinstatement into service on the ground that they were retrenched by the petitioner-Management without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act.
( 3 ) THE petitioner-Management filed a detailed counter opposing the claim of the workmen for their reinstatement into the service and inter alia pleaded that: (1) the petitioner-Management is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act; and (2) the appropriate Government in respect of the petitioner-Management under section 2 (a) (i) is the Central Government and so the petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, which is an amendment made and applicable by the State of Andhra Pradesh is not applicable to the workmen of the petitioner-Management.
( 4 ) THE petitioner-Management insisted that the said two points were required to be decided as preliminary points before entering into the merits of the case. The tribunal accordingly heard the parties and decided the same as preliminary points. The tribunal took the view that the petitioner- management is an industry and the state Government is the appropriate government .
( 5 ) THE petitioner-Management filed this batch of writ petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india calling for the records in I. D. No. 313 of 1993 and Batch, dated 16-8-1994 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and quash the same.
( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioner- Management that it is not an industry and the Industrial Disputes Act has no application. Hence, the workmen cannot file an application before the Labour Court under Section 2-A of Andhra Pradesh amendment to Industrial Disputes Act. It is also contended that the appropriate government is the Central Government and not the State Government as defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act and hence the appropriate Government has to constitute a Labour Court for adjudication of Industrial disputes relating to the matters specified in the Second Schedule and as in this case the labour Court (first respondent herein) constituted by the State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial dispute.
( 7 ) THE matters were listed before a learned single Judge of this Court for hearing. The learned single Judge after noticing the earlier judgment of a Division bench of this Court in W. A. No. 1853 of 1989 and Batch, dated 13-11-1992 and the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in physical Research Laboratory v. K. G. Shatna was of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 1853 of 1989 and Batch requires re-consideration and so opining referred the writ petitions to a larger (sic. Division) Bench. The writ petitions were accordingly placed before a division Bench of this Court. The Division bench found that the petitioner- management in this batch of writ petitions is actually seeking an opinion different from the opinion already taken by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W. A. No. 1853 of 1989 and Batch and also having regard to the fact that there is no direct decision of the Apex court on the question whether the act
