Point of Law : Labour law - Contractual employee – Whether comes under Act, 1947 - Definition of “industry” under section 2(j) of ID Act shows that definition includes any kind of trade undertaking, manufacture, or industrial occupation.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the impugned order dated 10th June, 2019, passed by the Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, by which it has been held that an industrial dispute of a contractual employee working with the Ministry of Labour is not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, “ID Act”), as the Ministry of Labour, executing a sovereign function for the Union of India is not an “industry” under the ID Act. The reference moved by the Petitioner, under Section 10 of the ID Act, has been rejected by the Respondent in the following terms:

“Sir,

I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. ALC-III/8(95)17 dated 01/03/2018 from the ALC(Delhi) received in this Ministry on 31/01/2018 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:

“Industrial dispute of a contractual employee working in the Ministry of Labour is not converted under ID Act as Ministry of Labour executing sovereign function for the Union of India is not an industry as defined under the ID Act 1947.”

3. The brief background of the petition is that she was working as a sweeper, peon etc., on daily wage basis, from 12th May 2007 up to August 2014, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, located at Shram Sakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, Delhi. She claimed to be performing her duties continuously and was an unskilled labourer in the Group- D category. She claimed that her position was thereafter designated as MTS i.e. Multi-Tasking Staff, after implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, and was merged with the Group- C category. She claimed that the salary etc. were paid to her directly from the Social Security Division of the management.

4. According to the Petitioner, her services were terminated on 31st August, 2014. Thereafter, she filed a statement of claim before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) for being referred to the labour court under Section 10 of the ID Act. The prayer in the said statement of claim was for reinstatement, with full back wages, and continuity of service with consequential benefits. In the written statement filed before the Labour Commissioner, the Ministry took a possession that it is executing a sovereign function with the Union of India, and it does not constitute an “industry” under the ID Act. The conciliation proceedings also resulted in a failure and thereafter the impugned order came to passed on 10th June, 2019.

5. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the issue at the time of reference under Section 10 of the ID Act is purely administrative. He submits that the legal question as to whether the Ministry of Labour would constitute an “industry” or not, is not an issue which is to be determined at the stage of reference, by the said Ministry itself. He submits that this is an issue which would have to be adjudicated upon on merits by the labour court. He, thus, relies upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in All India and General Mazdoor Union v. GNCTD, 106 (2003) DLT 208, to urge that the Ministry cannot, by itself, decide on merits on question of reference under section 10 of ID Act, and not refer the claim to a labour court by holding that the Ministry itself is not an “industry”. This according to him would be completely contrary to law, as a determination of an administrative authority cannot result in the rejection of a claim. If the said issue as to whether the Ministry of Labour is an “industry” or not has to be considered, it could have only been considered by the appropriate labour court, and not by the Government at the time of making a reference to the labour court under section 10 of the ID Act.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Bansal, ld. Counsel, submits that as per the definition of an “industry” u