The court held that the termination of the workman violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs instead of reinstatement due to the long duration of unemployment.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. ( Oral)

Petitioner - Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Chandigarh (being Management), has filed the present writ petition for quashing the notification dated 28.02.2014, vide which, the award dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-9) in I.D. No.624/2KS (Annexure P-9), has been published by the Central Government and received by the petitioner, vide communication No.CGIT/2014-15/51, dated 25.04.2014.

As per the award impugned herein, Ref. No.- L42012/208/2002/IR(CM-II), dated 05.03.2003, under Section 10(1)(d) and (2-A), of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of respondent No.2 - Kushaldeep Singh (workman). Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (in short, 'learned Tribunal') has observed that the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of the principle of law i.e. Section 25-F of the ID Act. Therefore, the workman was held to be entitled for reinstatement in service with 50% back-wages.

2. Pleaded case of the workman before the learned Tribunal is that he was an Ex-Serviceman, and was appointed a Security Guard at the Management's campus, vide appointment letter dated 23.03.2000, against the monthly salary of Rs. 2408/- per month. He worked up-till January 2001. Also pleaded that he served for more than 240 days in preceding one year from the date of termination. Thus, his termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages.

On the other hand, Management pleaded that the workman was appointed as 'security guard' w.e.f. 01.03.2000 vide appointment letter dated 23.03.2000, by reserving a right that the Director, CSIO, will have the right to relieve anyone from security arrangement without assigning any reason. Thus, while defending the termination of the services of the workman, Management submitted that the case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, and workman cannot claim that he has been retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

3. Learned counsel for the Management submits before this Court that petitioner - Management does not fall within the definition of 'industry', therefore, the provisions of the ID Act would not be applicable and relationship of 'employer & employee' also does not exist.

While submitting so, counsel for the Management (petitioner herein) relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Gujarat v. Pratamsing Narsinh Parmar, 2001(9) SCC 713 : Law Finder Doc Id # 11213 and submits that there being no material brought on record by the workman (respondent No.2 herein) to call the Management as 'industry', no protection can be extended to him under the ID Act. Counsel reads out paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced here-under also:-

"5. If a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part of it wherein an appointment has been made is an industry or not, it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be an industry, to give positive facts for coming to the conclusion that it constitutes "an industry". Ordinarily, a Department of the Government cannot be held to be an industry and rather it is a part of the sovereign function. To find out whether the respondent in the writ petition had made any assertion that with regard to the duty which he was discharging and with regard to the activities of the organization where he had been recruited, we find that there has not been an iota of assertion to that effect though, no doubt, it has been contended that the order of dismissal is vitiated for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act. The State in its counter affidavit, on the other hand, refuted the assertion of the respondent in the writ petition and took the positive stand that the Forest Department cannot be held to be an industry so that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act cannot have any application. In th