Jayant Nath, J. (Oral):--

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the Award dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Labour Court holding that the workmen in question Shri Uddal Singh and Sh. Desh Pal have put in more than five years and four years of continuous service respectively under the Management when their services were terminated and that they are entitled to protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The workman Uddal Singh (respondent No. 1) states that he joined employment of the petitioner on 21.01.1987 as daily wager ‘Beldar’ in the Engineering Services Department where he is stated to have worked up to 21.02.1992 continuously without any break. He states that he has put in more than 240 days of actual work in each completed year of service. His services were terminated vide oral order.

3. The other workman Desh Pal (respondent No. 2) claims to have joined the petitioner on 21.03.1988 and makes the same submission of having put in more than 240 days of service in each year. He also served upto 21.2.1992.

4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The references were disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as common question of facts and law were involved.

5. The reference by the Government of NCT of Delhi regarding the case of Uddal Singh reads as follows:-

“Whether the services of Sh.Uddal Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard.”

6. Reference for Sh. Desh Pal is also the same.

7. On 06.01.1995 the Labour Court framed common issues which reads as follows:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is a workman and the management is an industry as defined under the I.D. Act? 2. As in terms of reference.”

8. In Uddal Singh’s case (respondent No. 1) the workman filed his own evidence i.e. being Ex. WW-1. The petitioners filed evidence of Mr.R.K.Gangal as Ex. MW-1. In the case of Sh. Desh Pal (respondent No. 2), the said respondent also filed his own evidence and Sh. R.K. Gangal was examined as MW-1.

Later on the petitioner also filed the evidence of Mr.Suresh Bhaskar as MW-2 in both the cases.

9. As far as issue No. 1 is concerned, namely, as to whether the respondents are workmen, the Labour Court held respondents No. 1 and 2 to be workmen. It also held the petitioner to be an industry as defined within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.

10. On the main merits of the case, the impugned Award holds that respondents No. 1 and 2 have been in continuous service for 5 and 4 years respectively and on 21.02.1992 their services were terminated. It was further held that each workman has put in more than 240 days of actual work and is entitled to protection under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held that it is not the case of the petitioners that at the time of termination of services of the workmen, any of the mandatory conditions specified in Section 25 F of the Act have been complied with. In view of the said findings, the impugned Award holds that the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Award holds that there are specific assertions of facts made by the respondents workmen regarding their period of employment which the Management have simply denied without specifying the exact date of engagement and exact date of termination and hence, the denial is utterly vague and no denial in the eyes of law.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions. He firstly submits that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner is an industry is erroneous. He submits that the definition of industry as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 213 was referred to a Larger Bench and this Court should wait for the decision of the Larger Bench of the H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document