The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'triple test' and 'dominant nature test' to determine an establishment's status as an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The case at hand is a Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner/Bhartiya Chikitsa Kendriya Parishad/Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the “Council”) in the present case is aggrieved by the Award dated 02.03.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. III in I.D. No. 109/87 titled as In the matter of Industrial Dispute: between the Management of M/s Bhartiya Chikitsa Kendriya Parishad and Its Workman Sh. Satpal (hereinafter referred to as “impugned award”).

2. In the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has held that the services of Respondent No. 2/workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably and therefore he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages with effect from the date of termination and continuity of services as there was no evidence on the part of the Management of the gainful employment of the Workman. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby setting aside the impugned award.

THE FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. The Petitioner is a statutory body constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, under provisions of Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. It is a body corporate by the name of Central Council of Indian Medicine having perpetual succession and a common seal. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is an advisory body to the Ministry of Health in the field of medical education in the branches of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha.

4. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that he was appointed as peon-cum chowkidar with the Petitioner with effect from 17.07.1980 on probation for a period of two years. During his employment as a probationer, Respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (“LDC”) on ad-hoc basis with effect from 09.06.1981. Later on, vide Office Order dated 03.08.1982, Respondent No. 2 was reverted to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar with immediate effect.

5. On account of the work of Respondent No. 2 not being satisfactory, his probation period was retrospectively extended for another year with effect from 17.07.1982. During this extended probation period, the services of Respondent No.2 were terminated with immediate effect vide Memorandum dated 02.03.1983.

6. Aggrieved by his termination, Respondent No. 2 approached the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration and a reference was made under Sections 10 (1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, New Delhi in following terms:

"Whether the termination of service of Sh. Satpal is illegal and unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

7. Learned Labour Court, after appreciating the rival contentions, evidence lead and submissions advanced by the parties, framed the following issues:

i. “Whether the management is not an industry within the domain of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act as alleged in para 1 of the W.S. (preliminary objections)?

ii. Whether the reference is bad in law for the reasons stated in para 2 of the Written Statement (preliminary objections)?

iii. As per term of reference?”

8. Upon perusing the material facts and evidence on record, the learned Labour Court vide impugned Award dated 02.03.2001 answered the issues in favour of Respondent No. 2 and against the Petitioner. The terms of the reference were answered in the affirmative and the learned Labour Court held that the services of Respondent No. 2 were terminated illegally and unjustifiably. Respondent No. 2 was held entitled to be reinstated with full back wages with effect from the date of termination of services.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Petitioner has challenged the same in the present Writ Petition and sought set