The Appropriate Government for the Automotive Research Association of India is the State Government, and the Petitioner does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act due to his managerial duties.

JUDGMENT:

1) The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Appropriate Government in respect of the Respondent-Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) is Central or State Government. If it is held that the Appropriate Government for Respondent-ARAI is the State Government, the next issue for consideration is whether Petitioner fits into the definition of a term ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). If the Petitioner is able to clear the two hurdles, the Complaint filed by him challenging his termination can be adjudicated on the merits.

2) The Petition arises out of challenge to the Award dated 15 May 2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No.328 of 2010 by which the Reference relating to termination of Petitioner’s services with effect from 8 August 2005 is rejected.

3) Respondent-ARAI is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is established with the objectives of promoting research and other scientific work connected with design, development, manufacture and operation of motor vehicles, internal combustion engine, products of industries, etc. and to assist the research work of associations or institutions, whose objects include scientific and industrial research. Respondent-ARAI has been set up by Indian vehicle and automotive auxiliary manufactures. Almost all vehicle manufactures and major auxiliary manufactures are members of Respondent-ARAI.

4) Petitioner joined the services of Respondent-ARAI as Technical Assistant on 17 June 1980 on probation of one year. He was absorbed in the regular service of Respondent-ARAI by order dated 23 June 1981. He was promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant with effect from 1 January 1982. Thereafter he was further promoted to the position as Project Engineer with effect from 1 March 1985. Petitioner worked in the Vehicle Testing Department. He was further promoted to the position of Senior Project Engineer.

5) While working as Senior Project Engineer, a show-cause notice dated 30 July 2005 was issued to the Petitioner alleging that he was engaged in private business with his son and was accepting illegal gratification from various Three-Wheeler Manufactures by assisting them in getting clearance for their certification at Respondent-ARAI. Petitioner replied the show- cause notice on 2 August 2005 and denied the allegations. By letter dated 8 August 2005 Respondent-ARAI terminated the services of the Petitioner with immediate effect by crediting salary for three months in his account.

6) Aggrieved by his termination order, Petitioner was advised to file Original Application No.548 of 2005 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai challenging the termination order dated 8 August 2005. Respondent-ARAI filed Reply before the Tribunal contending inter alia that Respondent-ARAI is neither Department of Central Government nor is owned by the Central Government. That the Central Government does not hold the entire share capital of Respondent-ARAI nor exercises deep or persuasive control over the functioning of Respondent-ARAI. It was contended that functions of Respondent-ARAI are not closely related to the Government functions. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to dismiss the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner by order dated 27 November 2006 holding that it did not have jurisdiction to decide validity of termination order issued by Respondent-ARAI.

7) Petitioner thereafter decided to exercise the remedies under the Labour Laws. At the instance of the Petitioner, Reference was made by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune to First Labour Court, Pune, which was registered as Reference ( IDA ) No.328 of 2010. The Reference was with regard to termination of the Petitioner with effect from 8 August 2005 and for relief of reinstatement with continuity and backwages. Petitioner filed his statement of claim