The definition of 'Industry' includes entities engaging in systematic activities with employer-employee relations, irrespective of the profit motive, as determined under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present Writ Petition emanates from the Award dated 05.05.2010 ("Impugned Award") passed by the Court of Sh. T.S Kashyap, Presiding Officer, Labor Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts: Delhi in LIR No. 472/08 (Old No. ID-150/03) titled as Sh. Daya Chand v. M/s National Book Trust of India. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court held that the Petitioner/Trust is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D Act"). Further, it also held that the termination of the services of the Respondent/Workman by the Petitioner/Trust is illegal and accordingly the Respondent/Workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% backwages, continuity in service and consequential benefits. The Petitioner vide the present petition is inter alia praying to set aside the Impugned Award.

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

2. It is the case of the Respondent/Workman that he was employed by the Petitioner/Management sometime during 1990-1992 and since March 1995, he continued to work as Chaprasi (Peon) with the Petitioner/Trust on daily wages without any complaint and was paid wages @ Rs.119.20 per day. He claims that Sh. Tara Chandra, Sh. Anup Singh and Sh. Omveer Singh were also employed on daily wages subsequent to the employment of the Respondent/Sh. Daya Chand.

3. It is also his claim that on 13.10.2000, he made a demand to the Petitioner/Trust for regularization of his services and the Petitioner/director of the management had assured his regularization from February 2001. Howbeit, the Petitioner/Trust adopted a discriminatory attitude with the Respondent/Workman and regularized the services of the above three workmen who were junior to him, ignoring his claim.

4. It is further his case that on 26.11.2001, his services were illegally terminated. Further at the time of dismissal, neither any notice nor any enquiry was held by the Petitioner/Trust. Further, he also claims that the Respondent/Workman vide letters dated 28.11.2001 and 07.12.2001 had requested the Petitioner/Trust to regularize and to take him back to the services. However, there was no reply to those letters and subsequently, he again sent a demand notice dated 25.01.2002 through registered post to the Petitioner but there was no reply to the same.

5. The Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of the I.D Act, read with Government of India, Ministry of Labour Notification dated 14.04.1975, referred the present dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the services of Sh. Daya Chand S/o Sh. Bhojraj, C/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, H.No..431, Gali No.4, Amar Colony. East Gokulpuri, Delhi-94 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Government Notification and to wh