JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the award dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Labour Court at Palanpur in Reference No.671/1996 (old Reference No.1824/1995).

2. The main contention of the petitioner – original employer is that it is a charitable trust. It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent – workman had filed the aforesaid reference for his reinstatement, wherein after hearing both sides, the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference by directing the Trust to reinstate the workman to his original post with 25% back wages. It is contended by the petitioner that after alleged termination of his service, the workman approached the Labour Court after a period of two years. It is further contended by the petitioner that the workman himself has abandoned the work. That the workman was working on daily basis and the petitioner herein has also informed the workman to resume the work. However, he did not resume the work. It is contended that the workman was working only on temporary basis and he himself has abandoned the work. According to him, the workman has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act”) would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has not considered the factual aspects as well as legal aspects and has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the impugned award. It is contended that the petitioner is a charitable trust and does not fall within the meaning of the “Industry”.

3. Heard Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner – employer at length through video conferencing. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent – workman.

4. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has invited the attention of this Court regarding the award passed by the Labour Court as well as earlier litigation between the parties where reference came to be withdrawn by the workman. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manager, Panchasara Jani Derasar, Patna District Vs. Mahmadkha Gajikha Baloch, reported in 1992 (0) GLHEL-HC 214719 wherein it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that Jain Temple is trust and activities which are done in the temple are “dharm” and “dhyan” and, therefore, this was treated not an industry.

5. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to Section 2 (j) (with amendment) of the I.D. Act, which reads as under:-

“Clause (j) shall stand substituted as below when sec. 2(c) of Act 46 of 1982 will come into force:

(j) “industry” means any systematic activity carried out on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not.-

(i) any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on such activity; or

(ii) such activity is carried on with a motive to make any gain or profit, and includes -

(a) any activity of the Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948);

(b) any activity relating to the promotion of sales or business or both carried on by an establishment,

but does not include -

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) institutions owned or managed by organisations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service or

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx x