Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Irshad Ali, J.
Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Rishi Dev Mishra and Other - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 1005010 of 2006 Writ - A No. 398 of 1999, Writ - A No. 568 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1133 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1134 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1454 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1572 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1573 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1675 of 2002, Writ - A No. 1676 of 2002, Writ - A No. 2801 of 2002, Writ - A No. 2802 of 2002, Writ - A No. 4101 of 2001, Writ - A No. 4163 of 2001, Writ - A No. 4257 of 1997, Writ - A No. 4258 of 1997, Writ - A No. 4259 of 1997, Writ - A No. 5330 of 2001, Writ - A No. 5914 of 2001, Writ - A No. 5915 of 2001, Writ - A No. 5927 of 2001, Writ - A No. 8817 of 1992, Writ - C No. 1000938 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1000940 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1002577 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1004654 of 2005, Writ - C No. 1005011 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005012 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005013 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005014 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005015 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005016 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005017 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005018 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005019 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005020 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005021 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005022 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005023 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005024 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005025 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005026 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005027 of 2006,
Decided On : 03-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of common award under industrial disputes act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments asserting cimap's non-industry status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal definition of 'industry' under industrial disputes act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. supreme court case precedent on research institutions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. cimap not classified as an 'industry'. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. conclusion: allowance of writ petitions. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the validity of the common award dated 15th September, 2005 given by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (respondent no.2) in Industrial Dispute Case No.149 of 1998 (Rishidev Mishra v. Director, Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow) and Industrial Dispute Case Nos.151/98, 145/98, 148/98, 154/98, 152/98, 153/98, 150/98, 146/98, 144/98, 147/98, 126/98, 122/98, 99/98, 119/98, 120/98, 123/98 and 124/98 and published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour (respondent no.3) through Notification dated 22nd September, 2005 and sent by the Secretary, central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, through letter dated 6th December, 2005 as far as it relates to the Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, a constituent/ Institute of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 is an 'Industry' within the meaning of provision 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The bunch of the writ petition involves common questions of facta and law, hence with the consent of parties, writ petitions are decided by the present common judgment.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, respondent no.2, passed a common award dated 15.09.2005 in ID case No.149 of 1998 (Rishidev Mishra v. Director, Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow) and Industrial Dispute Case Nos.151/98, 145/98, 148/98, 154/98, 152/98, 153/98, 150/98, 146/98, 144/98, 147/98, 126/98, 122/98, 99/98, 119/98, 120/98, 123/98 and 124/98 as far as it relates to the Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow a constituent/ Institute of Council of Scientific and Industrial research, New Delhi, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 is an 'industry' within the meaning of provision 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The respondent no.1 raised conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur under the provisions of Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 with respect to alleged disengagement of their employment with Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow/ Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi impleading there in the Director/ Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow and not M/s Vikas Security Guards Services, Lucknow. The conciliation proceedings failed resulting which the Regional Labour commissioner (North) Kanpur submitted failure report to the respondent no.3.
After the submission of the conciliation failure report, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court/ Kanpur by the respondent no.3 through letter dated 21.04.1998. The respondent no.1 filed the claim application date 16.09.1998, replication to the written statement dated 25.05.199, application dated 17.09.2001 for filing 2 documents and Oath administered by the Presiding Officer to the deponent dated 12.09.2001 before the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.
The petitioners filed written statements dated 29.10.1998, stating therein various issues including that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are not applicable upon the CSIR, New Delhi or its constituent institutes including CIMAP, Luc
Research institutions like the Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants do not qualify as 'industries' under the Industrial Disputes Act, as they lack a commercial objective.
A research institution under the control of the government does not qualify as an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it lacks commercial intent and primarily focuses on research.
Point of Law : Cost of maintaining the association is met partly by members and partly by grants from government and other sources. It will thus be dear that in effect the association has been establ....
It is settled law that additional documents placed on record cannot be examined for first time by this Court while deciding veracity of preliminary order/award-rendered by Industrial Dispute Act.
The classification of an entity as an 'industry' is contingent on its commercial activities, impacting the jurisdiction of labor adjudication forums.
The definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excludes organizations engaged in sovereign functions or those not producing goods or services for market consumpt....
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 th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management's activities met the criteria of an 'industry' under the I.D. Act, and the workman's termination was held to be illegal under S....
The Irrigation Department is classified as an 'Industry' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and retrenchment without notice or compensation violates Section 6(N).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
