The interpretation of the definition of 'industry' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the presumption of continuity of services are crucial in determining disputes related to termination of services.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner-employer, UP State Education Department, in the instant writ-petition, has put a challenge to the impugned award, as it has been passed by the learned Labour Court on 30.09.2011 in Adjudication Case No.138 of 2009, "Sukh Dev Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Upri Ganga Nahar Adhunikikaran Khand".

2. The reference, which was made before the learned Labour Court called to be answered, was to the effect that, as to whether the act of the employer of terminating the services of the workman was in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The workman has come up with the case before the Learned Labour Court, that he was initially inducted with the petitioner as a daily wage employee ever since 01.01.1988 and he worked in the said capacity till 01.08.1992, lastly, when his services were orally terminated by the respondent without assigning any reason, as such.

4. The reference was made under Section 4(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and the same was referred to be decided by issuance of the Government Order. The respective parties to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court have filed the written statements and have also led their respective evidence. The learned Labour Court after the exchange of pleadings and, as per the argument extended by the counsel for the parties, has formulated following questions to be answered. The relevant questions, as formulated by the learned Labour Court, are extracted hereunder:-

"1. Whether the Irrigation Department is an “Industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act 1947 (Section 2(K) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947)

2. Whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a year or in twelve calendar months.

3. Whether the employer has adopted the procedure as prescribed under law before the termination of workman’s service.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has initially pressed his argument from the viewpoint, that the Irrigation Department would not be an industry, as it has been defined under section 2(J) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. As such, the proceedings drawn by way of reference under Section 4(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would be bad in the eyes of law, because it is not an “industry” under Section 2(K) of the Act of 1947.

6. The said matter was discussed by the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court, while returning its finding on the said question, has made a reference to paragraph no.14 and 15 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as it has been rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others and while referring to the concept of “industry”, as it has been dealt with by the Constitution Bench in paragraph no.14 and 15, it has observed that the Irrigation Department, once it performs a duty, which may be even a sovereign act of the State, will still constitute as to be an industry, in view of the Constitution entry made under the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Paragraph No.14 and 15 are extracted hereunder:-

“14. Likewise, an “industry” cannot exist without co-operative endeavour between employer and employee. No employer, no industry; no employee, no industry — not as a dogmatic proposition in economics but as an articulate major premise of the definition and the scheme of the Act, and as a necessary postulate of industrial disputes and statutory resolution thereof.

15. An industry is not a futility but geared to utilities in which the community has concern. And in this mundane world where law lives now, economic utilities material goods and services, not transcendental flights nor intangible achievements — are the functional focus of industry. Therefore, no temporal utilities, no statutory industry, is axiomatic. If society, in its advance, experiences subtler realities and assigns values to them, jurisprudence may reach out to such