The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management's activities met the criteria of an 'industry' under the I.D. Act, and the workman's termination was held to be illegal under Sec. 25-F of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. Vide this common judgment, this court intends to dispose of the following two writ petitions preferred under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

(i) W.P.(C) No. 5016 of 2003 titled as National Institute of Immunology Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta, filed by the Petitioner Management assailing the validity of the award dated 09.12.2002 (“impugned award”) passed by the Labour Court no. VII, Delhi in I.D. No. 301 of 1993.

(ii) W.P.(C) No. 16023 of 2004 titled as Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. National Institute of Immunology, filed by the Respondent Workman challenging the aforesaid impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. No. 301 of 1993.

2. The Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned award, adjudicated the terms of reference in favour of the workman holding that the National Institute of Immunology (“management”) illegally terminated the service of the workman, thereby granting a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to meet the ends of justice.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE WRIT PETITIONS

3. It is the case of the workman that he was engaged on 05.07.1990 on daily wage basis to work in the Store Department of the management for handling miscellaneous work.

4. On 09.08.1991, the workman applied to the management for regularization of his services. Allegedly, on 26.11.1991, the workman was refused duty by Mr. B. Bose, Senior Manager from the next day i.e. 27.11.1991. Aggrieved by the said verbal termination from service, the workman sent a demand notice on 08.05.1992 against the illegal termination for demanding the reinstatement in service.

5. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman against the management, which was subsequently referred by the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to the learned Labour court in exercise of the power conferred by the Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (“I.D. Act”). The dispute was referred for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the termination of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta 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 respect?”

6. Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman wherein it was averred that the workman was working with the management w.e.f. 05.07.1990 with the designation of Store Assistant, performing duties such as maintaining of challan register, helping in bill payments, stock entries etc. Apart from this, he was also assigned Hindi typing work. Workman contended that his services were terminated illegally w.e.f. 26.11.1991 without assigning any reason, while his junior named as Sh. Dalip Kumar was retained in service. It was alleged that the services were terminated in violation of the Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and therefore, an award be passed in favour of the workman awarding reinstatement along with full back wages and continuity of service.

7. On the other hand, management in its written statement outrightly denied that the Management is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act., hence averred that the claim of workman is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was stated that workman’s duty was being utilized in the Embryo Transfer Technology (ETT) project of Department of Biotechnology, wherein he willfully absented himself from the work. Further, since the ETT project titled as “Cattle herd improvement” for which workman was hired as a daily wage worker came to an end w.e.f. 31.03.1992, therefore services of workman were dispensed with. There exists no violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act since the workman stopped attending the work on his own and therefore no question of payment of one month’s salary to workman arises. Management also denied the allegation with respect to retaining of the junior and appointment of new workman after termination of the workman. Therefore, management pra