JUDGMENT

The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the preliminary order of the Labour Court can be interfered with, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Management in I.D. No.8/2009 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P7 preliminary order holding that the Hospital Development Committee, Government Women and Children Hospital, G.H. Road, Kozhikode is an industry as per Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short) and the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference.

3. The Government, vide Ext.P3 order dated 26-08-2009, referred the following issue for adjudication of the Labour Court:

“Whether the denial of employment of Sri. P. Mohanan, Security Staff of Government Women and Children Hospital, Calicut by the Secretary, Hospital Development Committee is justifiable? If not, what relief he is entitled to get?”

4. The management filed Ext.P6 interlocutory application before the Labour Court to hear and decide the question of maintainability of the dispute before proceeding further in the matter. It was contended that the Hospital Development Committee of the Government Hospital will not come under the purview of 'industry' as per Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos.20/2004 and 1600/2004 holding that hostels attached to medical colleges and hospitals are not 'industry' and employees of mess of the hostel canteen are not 'workmen', it was contended that the Hospital Development Committee of the Government Hospital is not an industry.

5. The Labour Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in v Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board A. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548), held that, systematic activities are being done by the Hospital Development Committee for the better administration of hospital and there is employer-employee relationship between the Hospital Development Committee and their staff members and that they are rendering services to the public at large after receiving fees and charges. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the Hospital Development Committee is an industry, and it would come within the purview of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. With regard to the contention based on the judgment that hostels attached to medical colleges and hospitals are not 'industry', Labour Court found that the functions/services of the Hospital Development Committee and that of hostels attached to medical colleges and hospitals cannot be equated, since in the case of Hospital Development Committee, the establishment has been authorized to collect fees or charges from the public at large for rendering various services to them, whereas in the case of hostel attached to the Government Medical College, the establishment is not authorized to collect fee or charges from the public, and no service is rendered by the hostel to the members of public. The actual expense for providing food articles and other essential items to the inmates (students) will be collected as hostel charges or mess charges and therefore, a hostel attached to the college may not be an industry under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, whereas, a Hospital Development Committee would come within the parameters of an industry as defined in the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the impugned preliminary order was passed by the Labour Court holding that the Hospital Development Committee of the Women and Children Hospital, Kozhikode is an industry, and the dispute that arose between the management of the Hospital Development Committee and the workman is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act and the Labour Court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference. However, the Labour Court observed that the industrial dispute will be disposed of on merit untrammeled by the observations in the said order.

6. Ext.P7 preliminary order is challenge