The State Government is duty-bound to refer an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, even if the employer is a charitable institution. The question of whether the employer is an industry or not is to be determined by the Labour Court.

1. - All the above mentioned writ petitions involve the same questions of law and the facts and, therefore, are being decided together. The respondents are also the same.

2. Reply has been filed in Civil Writ Petition No.5119/90 Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan & ors.

3. It was the case of the petitioners in all the cases that they were appointed as Karigars (masons) by the respondent No.3 and had completed more than 240 days continuous service. Their services were terminated when they had asked for being made as permanent. Said termination from services gave rise to an industrial dispute and, therefore, a demand notice was issued, copy of which was sent to the Conciliation Officer, Jaipur in the month of March 1989. The Conciliation Officer had taken up the matter. The respondent No.3 was summoned. The respondent No.3 also filed reply before the Conciliation Officer. It is stated in the writ petition that despite the raising of the industrial dispute, the respondent No.1 and 2 have not cared to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court as was required under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that no letter of refusal has even been sent to either of the petitioners. After having been made inquiries from the concerned office, the petitioners have come to know that the authorities concerned had passed some order in the file to the effect that the respondent No.3 being a charitable institution was not amenable to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.

4. Respondent No.3 has also filed a written statement and has denied the relationship of master and servant with the further submission that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the concerned workman or to the respondent No.3 and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity for the authorities authorised to work under the Industrial Disputes Act to even consider the demand notice of the petitioners for referring the dispute to the Labour Court.

5. No impugned order of declining to refer the matter to the Labour Court has been placed on record. The petitioner had rightly submitted that no such letter was ever communicated to them. After going through the written statement filed by the respondent No.1 and 2, the petitioners are strengthen for such submission wherein respondent Nos.1 and 2 had clearly averred that because of the reason that the respondent No.3 was a charitable institution, therefore, there was hardly any need for submitting the failure report by the Conciliation Officer or to pass any order in this regard. It is mentioned in para 3 of the reply filed by the respondent No.1 and 2 that the petitioners had not worked even for 240 days and the respondent No.3 being a religious institution, no reference was maintainable and demand notice had been issued by the petitioners with malafide intentions to harass the respondent No.3. This was so averred by the respondent No.1 and 2 on the pleadings taken by the respondent No.3 before the Conciliation Officer. It was further averred in para 6 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the respondent No.3 being a religious institution is being run for religious purposes and Dharamshala is not being used for commercial purposes. It is further averred that the income from the Dharamshala is being utilised for the utility of the public and from the said income many welfare activities are conducted by the institution. In regard to the fact that no order whatsoever had been passed on the respective demand notices issued by the petitioners, it has been admitted in para 8 of the reply that the dispute does not fall under the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity for the Conciliation Officer to submit any failure report. Para 8 of the reply filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is reproduced as under:- HINDI MATTER 361412

6. In view of the above pleadings the counsel for the pe