Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.
Central Leather Research Institute – Appellant
Versus
Lipika Mondal & Others – Respondent
W.P. 7960(W) of 2015
Decided On : 01-03-2017
CLRI - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(j), Section 2(k) - The court discussed the definition of 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act and applied the triple tests of systematic activity, cooperation between employer and employee, and production of goods and services. The court also examined the status of the private respondent as an employee of CLRI and applied the control test and the organization test to determine the employer-employee relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) challenged the Award directing the reinstatement of a workman, private respondent No.1, in the service of CLRI with full back wages. CLRI argued that the Tribunal did not consider whether CLRI qualifies as an 'Industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the private respondent was not a regular workman under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that CLRI fulfills the triple tests of systematic activity, employer-employee relationship, and production of goods and services, and therefore qualifies as an 'Industry' under the 1947 Act. The court also concluded that the private respondent provided assistance to CLRI under a contract of service and was abruptly laid off, thus affirming the Award and dismissing the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the qualification of CLRI as an 'Industry' and the status of the private respondent as an employee of CLRI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the triple tests of systematic activity, cooperation between employer and employee, and production of goods and services to determine the qualification of CLRI as an 'Industry'. Additionally, the court applied the control test and the organization test to determine the employer-employee relationship.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the Award and dismissed the petition, extending no relief to the writ petitioner.
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.
1. In this writ petition the short point of challenge is thrown by the Central Leather Research Institute (for short CLRI), Regional Office to the Award dated 12th November, 2014 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata in Reference Case No. 11 of 2008 (for short the Award, the Tribunal and the Reference respectively).
2. By the Award, the workman, being the present private respondent No.1, was directed to be reinstated in the service of CLRI with full back wages since the Tribunal held the termination of the private respondent No.1 to be illegal.
3. Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Ld. Counsel appearing for CLRI submits that the Award is jurisdictionally flawed since the Tribunal did not consider at all whether CLRI is an 'Industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 1947 Act).
4. The second issue argued by Mr. Bajpayee is that the private respondent No.1 was only associated with different projects of the CLRI as a Research Assistant and, therefore could not qualify to be a regular workman under the 1947 Act.
5. The private respondent No.1, Ms. Lipika Mondal, appears in person and supports the impugned Award.
6. Answering the first question raised by Mr. Bajpayee on the point whether CLRI qualifies to be an 'Industry' or not, this Court is required to notice the long-standing judicial view on the subject. The definition of 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. along with analogous matters which were decided by a common judgment reported in 1978 (2) SCC 213. To the understanding of this Court In Re: Bangalore Water Supply applied three tests for any entity to qualify within the meaning of 'Industry'. The three tests in a nutshell are systematic activity, cooperation between employer and employee and, production of goods and services. In the overall view of the Hon'ble Bench in the event an entity qualifies to be within the three tests as above, such entity, irrespective of the fact whether it is a club, a charitable institution, educational institution, research institution and the like shall be an 'Industry' within the meaning of the 1947 Act.
7. The Hon'ble Bench, however, excluded from the purview of 'Industry' an entity which is solely connected with the discharge of the sovereign functions of a State.
8. In the context of the above noted discussion the following paragraphs of In Re: Bangalore Water Supply are relevant, to the mind of this Court, to the facts of this case:-
"36. All the indicia of 'industry' are packed into the judgment which condenses the conclusion tersely to hold that 'industries' will cover 'branches of work that can be said to be analogous to the carrying out of a trade or business'. The case, read as a whole, contributes to industrial jurisprudence, with special reference to the Act, a few positive facets and knocks down a few negative fixations. Governments and municipal and statutory bodies may run enterprises which do not for that reason cease to be industries. Charitable activities may also be industries. Undertakings, sans profit motive, may well be industries. Professions and not ipso facto out of the pale of industries. Any operation carried on in a manner analogous to trade or business may legitimately be statutory 'industry'. The popular limitations on the concept of industry do not amputate the ambit of legislative generosity in Section 2(j). Industrial peace and the smooth supply to the community are among the aims and objects the Legislature had in view, as also the nature, variety range and areas of disputes between employers and employees. These factors must inform the construction of the provision.
37. The limiting role of Banerji (supra) must also be noticed so that a total view is gained. For instance, 'analogous
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
