Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 1093
High Court Of Delhi
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA KAMGAR UNION - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 6010 of 2002
Decided On : 11/25/2004
A.K.BAJPAI, Inderjeet Singh, Puneet Gupta
The court emphasized the determination of whether an entity qualifies as an 'industry' under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the entitlement of workmen to the benefit of the provisions of the Act based on the completion of 240 days of working.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 17a, Section 2(a), Section 21, Section 25f, Section 10(1)(e) - The court affirmed that the petitioner Authority is an industry within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act. The court also concluded that the workmen had completed 240 days of working, including counting of Saturday and Sunday as actual days of work. The court rejected the contention regarding the invalidity of the reference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of Delhi Administration.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen were engaged on a casual/daily rate basis and raised an industrial dispute after their engagement was not continued. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement of the workers with full back wages and continued service, which was challenged by the Sports Authority of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the petitioner Authority as an industry and concluded that the workmen had completed 240 days of working. The court also rejected the contention regarding the invalidity of the reference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of Delhi Administration.
Issues: Validity of the award, whether the Sports Authority of India is an industry, entitlement of workmen to the benefit of the provisions of the Act, and jurisdiction of Delhi Administration to make the reference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the petitioner Authority as an industry within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act and concluded that the workmen had completed 240 days of working. The court also upheld the jurisdiction of Delhi Administration to make the reference.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) S/shri Deepak Raj Mangal Singh and ramender Tiwari were engaged as groundsman on casual/daily rate basis during the period of November 1986 to April 1987. After October 1990 their engagement was not continued because of non-availability of work. These workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court by Delhi Administration vide its order of reference dated 27. 7. 1992. Having permitted the parties to complete their pleadings and lead evidence in support thereof vide its award shri K. S. Mohi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, delhi vide award dated 24. 12. 2001 answered the reference in favour of the workers and consequently allowed reinstatement of all the three workers with full back wages and continued of service. The award was published by Labour Commissioner on 22. 7. 2002 and it became enforceable in terms of Section 17a of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") on 21. 8. 2002.
( 2 ) THE Sports Authority of India challenges the validity of the award amongst the others but mainly on the grounds - (a) Sports authority of India is not an industry within the definition of Section 2 (a) of the Act; (b) the labour courts has fallen in error of law computing the 240 days by adding Saturday and Sunday to the advantage of the workmen and thus the entire award is vitiated; and (c) lastly the labour court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The labour court has incorrectly concluded of facts that provisions of Section 25f of the Act has been adhered to by the management According to the petitioner the said provisions are not attracted at all in the present case and such the award suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
( 3 ) THE Sports Authority of India has placed on record its Memorandum of Association. It is a registered society situated in the Union territory of Delhi with the object stated in the memorandum. The principles of the society as reflected in the said Memorandum and rules of the Authority clearly show that the entire control of this Authority is vested in the persons in Government service and are exoffcio members of the society by virtue of their status. Furthermore, its activities also indicate in discharge of its responsibilities and fulfillment or its objects, this society employs large number of persons in different cadre and positions. It is not a welfare society which is working for no profit and for no return. It is neither a research nor a charitable institution dealing with such projects. On the basis of its contents, functions it can hardly be said that this Authority is not an industry within the purview of Section 21 of the Act.
( 4 ) IN fact, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board, Etc, Etc. Vs. A. Rajappa and others, Etc, Etc. 1978 (1) llj 349 and Management of Horticulture department of Delhi Administration Vs. Trilok Chand and Another 2000 (1) LU 614, fairly did not press this argument, consequently, I have no hesitation in affirming the view taken by the Presiding Officer, Labour court that the petitioner Authority is a industry within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act.
( 5 ) SERIOUS controversy was raised before this Court that the workmen are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act as they have not completed 240 days in the award is admitted to be correct sum the would not have completed 240 days in 12 calendar months immediately preceding the reference/ termination of service. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workmen contended that the workmen had actually worked for 240 days and in any case they would be entitled to counting of Saturday and/or Sunday as a period of work in view of the judgment of the supreme Court.
( 6 ) CERTAINLY there was some doubt with regard to the status of the daily workers f
