The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'industry' under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the determination of the appropriate Government, which influenced the court's decision.

JUGDMENT - Smt. MHATRE NISHITA, J.:---This petition challenges the orders of the Labour Court in Reference (ULP) No. 4 of 1993 and of the Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 74 of 1993. The main contention involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is an 'Industry' as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the appropriate Government is the State Government or the Central Government.

2. The controversy in this petition arose since the services of one A.R. Radhakrishna were terminated on 23-4-1993 by the petitioner (hereinafter called as 'the RSI'). The members of respondent No. 1 union remained absent from duty on the next day. The RSI locked out the civilian employees who were represented by the respondent-union. The respondent-union, therefore, filed Reference (ULP) No. 4 of 1993 under section 25 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU PULP Act') on 7-5-1993 for a declaration that the lock-out imposed by the RSI was illegal.

3. In their reply filed on 22-7-1993, the RSI raised two preliminary contentions, namely, that the RSI was not an 'industry' and that the appropriate Government being the Central Government and not the State Government, the MRTU PULP Act was not applicable to the RSI. These preliminary issues were decided by the Labour Court by its order dated 10-9-1993. The Labour Court held that the activities of the RSI tell within the definition of 'industry' as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act') and the appropriate Government was the State Government and, therefore, the MRTU PULP Act was applicable and the reference was maintainable.

4. Aggrieved by this decision, the RSI filed a Revision Application under section 44 of the MRTU PULP Act. The Industrial Court dismissed the application and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. The RSI then filed the present writ petition. This Court while expediting the hearing of the petition, directed the Labour Court to proceed with the hearing of the reference. It appears that this reference has been disposed of by the Labour Court against which a writ petition was preferred before this Court. Consent terms were filed by the parties in the petition and it has been disposed of accordingly. Nor, the only two issues agitated by the RSI are (i) that the impugned order would affect all other Army Messes around the country if the RSI is considered to be an industry within the definition of 2(k) of the ID Act and (ii) that the appropriate Government is the Central Government since the activity of the RSI is conducted under the authority of Central Government this being a chore establishment of the Army.

5. Mr. Bhanage, learned Advocate for the RSI, submitted that notwithstanding the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa others)1, reported in 1978(I) L.L.J. 349 the RSI should not be considered to be an industry. He submits that this establishment is a "Mess" and not a "Club". According to him, both these terms are not synonymons. He submits that the Mess is a part of the defence establishment and is controlled by the Ministry of Defence. It is an integral part of the Army and is a chore establishment. He further submits that the Army Mess is performing a function supportive to the Army which performs a sovereign function and, therefore, the question of RSI being an Industry does not arise.

6. The learned Advocate sought to distinguish the judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) by submitting that the entire line of reasoning of the Apex Court reflected that the case before the Apex Court governed those establishments which provide goods and services on a commercial basis, and therefore, according to the learned Advocate only such establishments would be covered by the term 'Industry' as defined u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document