IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, J.
The Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation – Petitioner
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 18443, 18734 of 2021, 8000 of 2020
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(j) - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10(1) - Industry - Power of High court to issue writs - Whether Indian Space Research Organisation and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others would be falling within definition of ‘Industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Whether Court under Article 226 would have jurisdiction or Central Administrative Authority which would not efface or arrest right of affected party to raise such issue - findings of Labour Court cannot withstand touchstone of Judicial verdict as it did not give any opportunity to either of parties to lead evidence in affirmative or rebuttal.
Findings of the Court:
All these documents are required to be proved following principles laid down under Indian Evidence Act subject to mode of proof and cross examination by rival parties. Thus, Court would refrain myself of commenting further with regard to maintainability or otherwise of claim of claimants much less ISRO as an industry or not for Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal while deciding preliminary issue ought to have given atleast few effective opportunities to either of parties to lead evidence by countering each other arguments and then arrive at just and equitable decision for removing grains from chaff.
Result: Writ Petitions are disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions; W.P. (C) 8000 of 2020 preferred against the preliminary order rendered in I.D No. 20/2017 dated 20.11.2019, W.P. (C) No. 18443 of 2021 preferred against the preliminary order in I.D. No. 35 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021 and W.P. (C) No. 18734 of 2021 against the preliminary order in I.D. No. 27 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021.
2. The controversy involved in these writ petitions falls under the narrow campus for consideration of this Court by raising the question whether Indian Space Research Organisation and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others would be falling within the definition of ‘Industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Respondents, employed under contract basis through the contractor and engaged by the employer by virtue of a contract as provided under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 submitted a complaint before the concerned Conciliation Officer, aggrieved of the inaction of the petitioners in not regularizing their services. Since the proceedings failed, matter was referred to the Government for reference to the Labour Court. It is in that background jurisdiction of the Labour Court was sought whereby all three aforementioned I.D. numbers have been allocated. The thrust of the petitioners before the Labour Court was that there had already been an adjudication of similar controversy in respect of I.D. No. 11 of 2008, decided on 09.03.2010, where claim for not providing the facilities of contingent bonus and medical benefits was also referred as industrial dispute, on adjudication and preponderance of the evidence, it was held that the activities carried by the petitioners therein would not fall within the definition of ‘Industry’. Labour Court was called upon to decide the preliminary issue with regard to the activity of the management as an industry and in support thereof placed on record the aforesaid award. Labour Court vide impugned preliminary orders dated 07.04.2021 in I.D. Nos. 27 and 35 of 2018, dated 20.11.2019 in I.D. No. 20 of 2017, by relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, 2001 (7) SCC 1 : 2002 KHC 609 and referring to paragraph Nos.125 and 126 of the judgment as well as by noticing that two companies namely Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited were indulging into a commercial activity, rejected the objection of the petitioners and called upon the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the matter for determining the claim with regard to regularization. It is in that background the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. During the pendency of the writ petitions some additional documents have been placed on record in support of the grounds taken in the writ petitions with advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, duly replied. The purpose of these documents is to render assistance to this Court for arriving at a just and fair finding and also to examine the veracity and impact of the preliminary orders under challenge.
5. Mr. R. Sankara Narayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of the averments made in the writ petitions, raised following submissions:
(ii) Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited are not the commercial arms of ISRO as they are separate entities. Companies established and registered under the Companies Act having own independent board of directors with a Government’s Majority Share holders and with a different set of employees have nothing to do with the works of the ISRO deal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.