Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3609
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. 1005027 of 2006, Writ - C No. 1005026 of 2006
Decided On : 03-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT : S.14(2)
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Authority of labor courts - Court reaffirms that research institutions under government control do not satisfy the criteria of industry, thus labor court jurisdiction is not applicable here. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions challenge a common award from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which determined the status of the Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants as an industry, affecting employees' claims. Petitioners argue that the Institute's primary function is scientific research, not industrial activity.
Findings of Court:
The Central Institute is not a business but a research entity and does not qualify under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: Whether the Central Institute meets the definition of 'industry' and the appropriateness of labor court jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that the institute's activities are research-oriented and lack the commercial intent to qualify as an industry, emphasizing previous case law supporting this stance.
Result: Writ petitions are allowed except for specified cases which are dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit
For the Respondent: Mata Prasad Yadav
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to common award on industry definition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue csir institutes are not industries. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents assert definition includes petitioners. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. definition of 'industry' in industrial disputes act. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. past rulings clarify research institutions' status. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. cimap characterized as non-commercial. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. court concludes cimap is not an industry. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. result: writ petitions allowed except noted cases. (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
