The Labour Court has the authority to determine workman status and is not bound by the judgment of another Labour Court. An organization must satisfy the triple test to qualify as an industry.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated 31. 1. 2002 of Labour Court-III, Karkardooma, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner made an application under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming an amount of rs. 1,02,451/- from the respondent based on an award dated 14. 12. 1989 passed by labour Court-VII, Tis Hazari, management whereby he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity. The management had not reinstated him despite the award, therefore, he claimed entire back wages, damages in lieu of quarters @ Rs. 150/- p. m. for the entire period.

( 3 ) THE claim was contested by the respondent, respondent's plea was that the application was not maintainable because petitioner was not a workman since the respondent was not an industry. It was contended that petitioner was working as a part-time chowkidar with the Hostel Mess Committee.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal observed that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of 'management of Som Vihar Apartment Owners' Housing Maintenance society Ltd. v. Workmen (2002) 9 SSC 652,' the petitioner could not be termed as a workman. Tribunal also observed that in terms of the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Commissioner determining the dues at Rs. 16,008/-, petitioner has already received the amount against back wages. Workman had not proved on record any notice served upon by the management for his reinstatement before coming to court and he served notice after about four years of filing the application before the Tribunal. The petitioner was not entitled to get any salary from the management for the period after the passing of the award.

( 5 ) THE award has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that approach of the Labour Court was one sided and Labour Court acted in a malafide manner while passing the order. The petitioner pleaded that Labour court was only to calculate the amount of money due to him from his employer in view of the previous award passed in his favour and Labour Court could not go into the question whether the petitioner was a workman or not. Order of Labour court was perverse and illegal. Labour court by passing the present award against the workman has in way set aside the earlier award and Labour Court had no power to set aside the earlier award.

( 6 ) A perusal of the record would show that the award dated 14. 12. 1989 passed by Labour Court No. VII was an ex-parte award and the court had not considered the question whether the petitioner was a workman or not. The present award,which is subject matter of challenge was not before the same presiding Officer who presided the Labour Court VII. The present proceedings were under Section 33 C (2) while the earlier award was on a reference made by the appropriate government. It is settled law that the judgment and opinion of one Labour Court is not binding on the other Labour Court. It is only the judgments of High Court and Supreme Court which have binding effect on the lower courts. Labour Court No. III which passed the impugned award was not bound by the findings given by Labour Court VII. Every subordinate court has to give judgments and orders in conformity with the law laid down by High Courts and supreme Court. The law laid down by Supreme Court has a binding effect on the lower courts under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and could not have been ignored by the Labour Court.

( 7 ) IN order to maintain an application under section 33 C (2), the applicant must fulfill the character of a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Labour Court is bound to adjudicate this question as without adjudicating this question it cannot grant relief under this Section. A Labour Court is free to decide this question independent of decision of any other Labour Court or any other authority under any other statute. I, therefore, consider that the Labour Court No. III was withi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document