JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---This petition is directed against the order dated 18th July 1986 passed by Shri M.R. Bhope, Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay (respondent No. 2 herein), in Reference (IDA) No. 175 of 1982 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The material facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this petition are as under.

3. By an order dated 10th March 1979, the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board (respondents No. 1 herein), a statutory board constituted under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (Maharashtra Act No. XXX of 1969) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Act"), appointed the petitioner as an Inspector of the respondent No. 1-Board on probation for a period of three months from the date of his reporting for duty. The petitioner was required to perform functions of Inspector as specified under section 15 of the Act. By its order dated 17th December 1980, the respondent No. 1-Board informed the petitioner that the question of petitioner's confirmation as an Inspector in the services of the Board was not in favour of confirmation of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 18th December 1980.

4. Being aggrieved by the said termination order, the petitioner made a demand for his reinstatement in the service. Conciliation proceedings were held. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court at Bombay by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The said dispute was in respect of the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 18th December 1980.

5. During the course of the said reference proceedings, the petitioner filed his statement of claim contending that the said termination order was mala fide and unjust. The petitioner also proceeded on the footing in the said statement of claim that the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed in the service of the respondent No. 1-Board as an Inspector in the absence of any communication from the Board on expiry of the said period of three months. In the written statement filed in the said proceedings, two preliminary contentions were urged on behalf of the Board. The Board contended that having regard to the nature of its functions under Maharashtra Act No. XXX of 1969, the Board was not an 'industry' as defined under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Board also contended in its written statement that the petitioner was not a 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits also, the Board disputed the claim of the petitioner. It appears to be the contention of the Board on merits that the petitioner was on probation and in the absence of any express order of confirmation, the petitioner could not be deemed to have been confirmed. It was also case of the Board in paragraph 15 of the written statement that the petitioner was not confirmed because there were serveral complaints against the petitioner by the employers and it was not possible for the Board to repose the requisite confidence in the petitioner.

6. The First Labour Court framed five issues for its consideration. Evidence was led by the parties. Two of the said issues were jurisdictional issues. The said two issues read as under :-

"(1) Does the opponent (i.e. the respondents No. 1 before me) prove that Shri Mhasvadkar (i.e. the petitioner before me) is not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(2) Whether the opponent is an industry?"

The First Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 Board was not an industry' within the meaning of the said expression used under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view thereof, the Fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document