ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Record of the Industrial Dispute No. 265/92 (New No. 737/95) may kindly be called for and after examining the same the impugned award may be quashed and set aside.

2. That it may please be declared that respondent No. 1 is not entitled for any relief much less the relief granted by impugned award.

3. Any other further order which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed”

2. The petitioner („petitioner Hospital‟ hereinafter) is an institute which is wholly financed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and is primarily engaged in research work in the field of chest and allied diseases besides providing medicines and other medical facilities.

3. The respondent („respondent workman‟ hereinafter) was working as a casual and daily wager in the petitioner Hospital since the year 1988 at a last drawn salary of Rs. 1000/- per month, and the services of the respondent workman were allegedly terminated illegally in the year 1991.

4. During the course of proceedings in dispute bearing no. 737/95 the petitioner Hospital had raised the issue of non-maintainability of such a dispute against them as the petitioner hospital cannot be treated as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 („ID Act‟ hereinafter).

5. Pursuant to completion of the proceedings, the learned Labour Court passed an award in favor of the respondent workman vide award dated 29th July, 2002 (published on 2nd September, 2002) thereby, directing the petitioner Hospital to reinstate the respondent workman along with full back wages and continuity of services.

6. Subsequently, the respondent workman filed an application under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act for execution of the award and in pursuance of the same, a recovery certificate bearing Certificate no. F.23(953)/02/Imp dated 10th April, 2003 was issued for an amount of Rs. 3,03,554 for the period of 10th May, 1991 to 30th September, 1992 by the appropriate Government.

7. Since the petitioner Hospital had failed to implement the above said award, the respondent workman grave representations dated 9th May, 2003 and 5th July, 2003 seeking execution of the award, but the same was not done.

8. Aggrieved by the award dated 29th July, 2002, the petitioner Hospital has approached this Court by way of filing present petition seeking quashing of the same.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Hospital submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner entity being a Hospital cannot be construed as an industry for the purpose of the ID Act, and therefore, adjudication of the dispute by the learned Labour Court is bad in law.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner Hospital is governed by the Union of India, and same is the appropriate Government for referral of the dispute to the Labour Court, however, the dispute in the instant case was referred by the State Government, therefore, such reference does not hold any position in law.

11. It is submitted that the learned Court did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner Hospital had informed the Union representing the respondent workman about his wilful absence from the work, however, the said fact was denied by the workman during the proceedings before the learned Court below.

12. It is submitted that the respondent workman has still not reported for his duty and is merely interested in recovering the amount through coercive measures and the same can be evident from the recovery certificate.

13. It is also submitted that the respondent workman failed to prove that he worked for more than 240 days during the last twelve months preceding to the alleged date of the alleged illegal termination, and therefore, the learned Court below erred in directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman.

14. Therefore, in view of the forego