Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
THE CHAIRMAN, – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- – Respondent
WP(C)/18443/2021
Industry - Labour Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(j), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - The court examined whether ISRO constituted an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, focusing on the nature of activities and organizational structures, impacting jurisdictional issues before the Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions arose from preliminary orders of the Labour Court regarding employment regularization claims by contract workers at ISRO and its affiliated companies, questioning whether ISRO could be classified as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Labour Court's preliminary findings, which relied on Supreme Court judgments, were flawed due to a lack of evidentiary support and inadequate opportunity for parties to present cases, warranting a review of the jurisdictional questions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether ISRO and its affiliates could be classified as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the claims of the contract workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while traditional governmental functions are excluded from the definition of industry, commercial operations undertaken by ISRO through its affiliated entities qualify as industry, thereby allowing jurisdiction for labor disputes.
Final Decision: Preliminary orders set aside; parties directed to appear before the Labour Court for a proper examination of evidence.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.18443/2021, 8000/2020, 18734/2021]
This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions; W.P.(C) 8000 of 2020 preferred against the preliminary order rendered in I.D No.20/2017 dated 20.11.2019, W.P.(C) No.18443 of 2021 preferred against the preliminary order in I.D.No.35 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021 and W.P.(C) No.18734 of 2021 against the preliminary order in I.D.No.27 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021.
2. The controversy involved in these writ petitions falls under the narrow campus for consideration of this Court by raising the question whether Indian Space Research Organisation and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others would be falling within the definition of 'Industry' as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
3. Respondents, employed under contract basis through the contractor and engaged by the employer by virtue of a contract as provided under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 submitted a complaint before the concerned Conciliation Officer, aggrieved of the inaction of the petitioners in not regularizing their services. Since the proceedings failed, matter was referred to the Government for reference to the Labour Court. It is in that background jurisdiction of the Labour Court was sought whereby all three aforementioned I.D. numbers have been allocated. The thrust of the petitioners before the Labour Court was that there had already been an adjudication of similar controversy in respect of I.D.No.11 of 2008, decided on 09.03.2010, where claim for not providing the facilities of contingent bonus and medical benefits was also referred as industrial dispute, on adjudication and preponderance of the evidence, it was held that the activities carried by the petitioners therein would not fall within the definition of 'Industry'. Labour Court was called upon to decide the preliminary issue with regard to the activity of the management as an industry and in support thereof placed on record the aforesaid award. Labour Court vide impugned preliminary orders dated 07.04.2021 in I.D.Nos.27 and 35 of 2018, dated 20.11.2019 in I.D.No.20 of 2017, by relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers [ 2001 (7) SCC 1 :: 2002 KHC 609], and referring to paragraph Nos.125 and 126 of the judgment as well as by noticing that two companies namely Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited were indulging into a commercial activity, rejected the objection of the petitioners and called upon the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the matter for determining the claim with regard to regularization. It is in that background the present writ petitions have been filed.
additional documents have been placed on record in support of the grounds taken in the writ petitions with advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, duly replied. The purpose of these documents is to render assistance to this Court for arriving at a just and fair finding and also to examine the veracity and impact of the preliminary orders under challenge.
5. Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of the averments made in the writ petitions, raised following submissions.
(i) The documents placed on record would establish that Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) does not have independent budget but is being allocated a grant by the Central Government under Demand No.94 as decided in the Parliament. The balance sheet would reflect that non-utilized grants were returned back. (ii) Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited are not the commercial arms of ISRO as they are separate entities. Companies established and registered under the Companies Act having own independent board of directors with a Government's Majority Share holders and with a different set of employees have nothing to do with the works
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
