Back
2008 Supreme(Jhk) 14
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
Asit Baran Modak
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Anr.
W.P. (L) No. 6669 of 2002
Decided on : 10-1-2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and the application of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the Bangalore Water Supply case.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of industry under the Industrial Disputes Act and applied the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the Bangalore Water Supply case. The court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the Satsangh did not fall within the definition of industry as it was a charitable institution with no business or trade activity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a workman, raised an industrial dispute over his termination from the Satsangh. The Labour Court rejected his claim, stating that the Satsangh did not qualify as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenged this decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Satsangh did not meet the definition of industry as it was a charitable institution with no business activity. The court upheld the Labour Court's decision, stating that the petitioner failed to establish that the Satsangh was an industry.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Satsangh qualified as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether the termination of the petitioner's service was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines from the Bangalore Water Supply case to determine the nature of the Satsangh's activities and concluded that it did not engage in business or trade activity, thus not meeting the definition of industry under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and there was no order as to cost.
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
1. Asit Baran Modak, the petitioner herein, claiming that he was working as aworkman in the Deoghar Satsangh, the respondent herein, on being aggrieved over his termination, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Deoghar for adjudication. By the award dated October 6,2001, the Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that it is not an industrial dispute as the respondent is not an industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. The terms of reference which was framed by the Labour Court is as follows:
(i) Does Deoghar Satsangh come under the definition of Industry as per the Industrial Disputes Act?
(ii) If yes, whether the termination of service of Asit Baran Modak is justified?
iii) If not, whether Modak is entitled to reinstatement or compensation?
3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1967by Satsangh and was dismissed from the service on November 11,1990 without any reason.
4. According to the management, the respondent herein, the Satsangh does notcome within the definition of Industry as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Satsangh and the petitioner and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. On behalf of the workman, 7 witnesses were examined. On the side of the management, 5 witnesses were examined. Through their respective witnesses, several documents had been filed by both the parties. The Labour Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties passed an award concluding that the petitioner workman failed to establish that Satsangh is an industry and hence he is not entitled to claim the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ.
6. Satish Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the said finding, would submit that the Labour Court failed to consider the evidence in the proper perspective and failed to take into consideration the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the Bangalore Water Supply case, as reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 : (1978) 2 SCC 213 : 1978-I-LLJ-349 and as such the award is not legal.
7. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court classified charitable institutions into three categories and concluded that the first two categories of charitable Institutions would be covered by the definition of industry and only the third category would go out of its coverage and the respondent in question would fall in first and second category satisfying the ingredients of industry, which are reflected in the
documents produced by the workman which the Labour Court had failed to appreciate the same by proper application of mind.
8. Refuting this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the Labour Court in its award had elaborately dealt with each and every document produced by the petitioner and gave reasons for rejecting those
documents on the ground that those documents have no relevance and further those documents cannot be relied upon as those documents were not issued by the management, the Satsangh and the Labour Court further held in the award that the documents produced by the management, the Satsangh would prove that the persons working in Satsangh were not workmen and they were all devotees, and they were given only the subsistence allowance as they were working out of their own free will and out of charity and hence the factual finding given by the Labour Court through its award that the petitioner is not a workman cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. We have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully considered their respective submissions.
