JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has called in question an award dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh [“the Tribunal”], whereby the Tribunal has turned down and returned the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Central Government as “not maintainable”.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition by the petitioner invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that, on an industrial dispute having been raised by the petitioner with the management of Small Industries Service Institute, the Central Government vide No.L-

42012/132/93-1R(DV) dated 29.11.1994 referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication in the following term:-

“ whether the action of the management of Small Industries Service Institute, Jammu in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. The claim of the petitioner claiming to be a workman with the respondent-Institute, as was laid before the Tribunal, was that he was working as peon on daily wage basis with the respondent-Institute for the last about seven years and his services were terminated on 12.02.1993 arbitrarily and without passing any order. He was neither paid any retrenchment compensation nor was any prior notice of termination given to him. A UDC of the respondent-Institute, who had no authority or competence, terminated his services. The claim of the petitioner was refuted by the respondent-Institute, which, apart from meeting the case of the petitioner on merits, also took a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the reference. It was claimed that the respondent-

Institute was not an „ industry ‟ , as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, not amenable to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was pleaded that the respondent-Institute provides only consultancy services to prospective units and also assists the State Government in implementing Central Government Policies. It also provides technical guidance to the entrepreneurs proposing to set up their industries. On merits, it was submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was on daily wage basis and without availability of Class-IV post in the respondent-Institute in Jammu. It was submitted that a request was made to the Central Government to sanction three posts of Class-IV to respondent-Institute at Jammu but the request was declined by the headquarter and, therefore, the respondent-Institute was left with no option but to terminate the arrangement under which the petitioner was appointed.

4. The matter was considered by the Tribunal. Relying upon definition of the „industry‟ given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“the Act”] and the judgments referred to by the management of the respondent-

Institute, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent-Institute performing consultancy services was not covered under the definition of „industry‟ and, therefore was not amenable to the provisions of the Act. It is in this background, the reference was turned down and returned to the appropriate government by the Tribunal vide its award dated 08.04.2003, which is impugned in this petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the following question seeks determination in this petition:-

“whether the Small Industries Service Institute, Jammu qualifies to be an „industry‟ unde r the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, amenable to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

6. The core question to be determined in this petition is the nature of activities, which the respondent-Institute performs and whether such activities bring the respondent-Institute within the purview of the ter