O R D E R

With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is heard finally.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 16/04/2001 (Annexure-P-16) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur directing reinstatement of respondent no.2 with full back wages and setting aside the order of termination dated 23/01/1990.

3. Challenge is made mainly on two grounds that the petitioner is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, is not an industry and as such respondent no.2 is not a workman and provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1947’) are not applicable and the termination of respondent no.2 does not come within the definition of retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the‘Act 1947’ but govern with Exception Clause i.e 2(oo)(bb) of the ‘Act 1947’. It is also submitted that the impugned award directing reinstatement with full back wages is also not proper for the reason that the tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact regarding gainful engagement of respondent and further failed to consider the fact that the reference has been answered by the Labour Court consuming a long period for which the petitioner can not be held responsible.

4. Respondents denied the said contention of the petitioner and submit that there is no infirmity in the impugned award. According to the respondents, petitioner has rightly been considered to be an industry by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the termination of the petitioner is in violation of required procedure of the ‘Act 1947’ and in any manner the said termination cannot be said to be out of the scope of ‘retrenchment’. Further, considering the facts situation of the case, it does not fall under the Exception Clause as has been defined in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ‘Act 1947’.

5. To resolve the controversy involved in the case relevant facts are briefly stated below:-

(i) As per the petitioner, the petitioner i.e Indian Council of Medical Research is a society registered under the ‘Society Registrikaran Act’. The respondent no.2 was a Field Lab Attendant posted at the filed station of Malaria Research Center, at Jabalpur. He was appointed in the year 1987 and according to the petitioner his appointment was co-terminus with the life of the project or so long as his services are required. The appointment order of the Respondent no.2 is

(Annexure-P-2).

(ii). As per the petitioner the project was initially approved for a period of five years from 1985-1990 and thereafter extension was granted on year to year basis. As per the petitioner, the project was phasing out and on assessment of the work and conduct of respondent no.2, it was found that his services were no longer required. Consequently an order has been issued on 23/01/1990 (Annexure-P-3), whereby services of respondent no.2 were dispensed w.e.f 31/01/1990.

(iii). The petitioner thereafter raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur under Section 10 of the ‘Act 1947’. A reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Center, New Delhi in terminating the service of Shri Chandrashekhar Tiwari, Field/Lab Attendant vide their order dated 23/01/1990 is justified ? if not, what relief he is entitled to”.

(iv) The respondent-employee submitted his statement of claim, claiming reinstatement with full back wages

(Annexure-P-4). The management also submitted their reply/statement (Annexure-P-5).

(v) As per the stand taken by the respondent (petitioner herein) the termination of the workman was made strictly in terms of the appointment. There was no permanent staff in the cadre of Lab Attendant at Jabalpur and services of entire staff was co-terminus with cecession of the project. It is