A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. AND K. K. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Shobhit Aditya, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Anoop Shrivastava, advocate, for the respondent No. 1. I. A. No. 9081/2006 and I. A. No. 12385/2006 are two interlocutory applications filed in Writ Appeal No. 732/2006.

( 2 ) ON October 7, 2006 the Court while admitting the writ appeal and issuing notice of the writ appeal as well as application for stay (LA. No. 9081/2006) to the respondents, directed that there shall be an interim stay of the order dated December 1, 2004 of the Presiding officer, Labour Court No. 2, Bhopal and the order dated May 5, 2005 of the learned single judge in W. P. No. 1465/2005 and other connected cases.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER LA. No. 12385/2006 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for direction on the appellants to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'act') and reinstate the respondent No. 1 with back wages as ordered by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 5. 5. 2005.

( 4 ) MR. Shobhit Aditya learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the labour Court has wrongly decided in the award that the activities of the Family Planning association of India represented by the appellants made the Family Planning association of India an industry for the purpose of the Act. He submitted that the award of the labour Court is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Family Planning Association of India is not an industry and the Act is not applicable to the Family Planning Association of India. He further submitted that in Regional Authority, dena Bank and Another v. Ghanshyam, AIR 2001 SC 2270 : 2001-II-LLJ-252 the Apex court has held that Section 17-B of the Act does not preclude the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution from passing appropriate interlocutory order having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. He submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case when the Family planning Association of India is not an industry to which the Act applies, this Court should in exercise of power under Article 226 of the constitution not only stay the award of the labour Court as well as the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge but also hold that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act need not be complied with by the appellants.

( 5 ) MR. Anoop Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court has rightly held that the Family Planning; association of India is an industry to which the act is, applicable. He further submitted that in dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511 : (1999) 2 SCC 106 : 1998-I-LLJ-1 the supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the constitution cannot pass an order denying the workman the benefits granted under Section 17-B of the Act. He also cited the decision of the supreme Court in C. M. Saraiah v. E. E. . Panchayat Raj Department and Another, 2000-I-LLJ-23 (SC) in which the Supreme court has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct non-compliance of the provisions of section 17-B of the Act and has quashed the order of the High Court.

( 6 ) WE have perused the award dated december 1, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, bhopal, in the present case and we find that the labour Court has relied upon the Division bench Judgment of this Court in Manila Samiti, tikamgarh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1993-III-LLJ (Suppl)-468 (MP) and come to the conclusion that the Family planning Association of India is an industry to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. Hence, the finding in the award of the Labour court that the Family Planning Association of india is an industry to which the provisions of the Act are applicable, prima facie, appears to be well founded.

( 7 ) EVEN if this Court comes to the conclusion in the writ appeal that thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document