An employer performing non-sovereign functions must comply with the Industrial Disputes Act, including provisions for retrenchment, regardless of the employment's casual nature.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 20.01.2004 ("the impugned award") passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II Delhi. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the petitioner Department falls under the definition of an `industry' under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("The I.D. Act"). It was also held by the learned Tribunal that actions of the Petitioner Department in terminating the services of Respondent no.2 and not regularizing him in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 is neither justified nor legal, therefore directed the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent no.2 with 25% back wages.

FACTS OF THE CASE RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT MATTER ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. Facts in a nutshell is that Respondent no.2 was engaged as a muster roll Beldar with the Petitioner in the year 1991 and was posted in Delhi circle. Respondent no.2 dispensed his duty at Humayun Tomb, Red Fort etc. which is under the care and control of the Petitioner. The dispute has its genesis from the time when Respondent no. 2 through his trade union raised a demand for regularization of his service. However, the services of Respondent no.2 was allegedly terminated w.e.f. 28.03.1997 without any notice, notice pay and gratuity.

3. Aggrieved by the alleged termination, Respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation officer, which, however, resulted in failure. Subsequently, on 13.10.1999, the dispute was referred by the Regional Labour Commissioner to the learned Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication. The terms of reference was as follows:

"Whether the action of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi in stopping from duty/terminating the services of Shri Upendra Chaudhary w.e.f 28.03.1997 and not regularizing him in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/- is justified, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled"?

4. Respondent no.2 filed his statement of claim before the Tribunal wherein he submitted that he was employed for work which was perennial and permanent in nature without stipulation of any condition regarding his employment. Allegations were made that management/petitioner failed to implement O.M. No. 51016/2/90 Estt (C) dated 10.09.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training which granted temporary status and regularization of casual workers w.e.f. 01.09.1993. It was further alleged that he was in `continuous service' of the Petitioner as required under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act at the time of his illegal termination. Therefore Respondent no.2 prayed for re-instatement and regularization of his service as a `Beldar' in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/- (further revised pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/-) from the date of initial appointment.

5. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 20.01.2004 wherein it was observed that the petitioner/management is an `industry' and it is not engaged in sovereign work. It decided the dispute in favour of Respondent no.2 and directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent no.2 along wit