IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 6447 of 2012 THE CHAIRMAN, GWALIOR VYAPAR MELA PRADHIKARAN AND ANOTHER Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for petitioners.

None for respondents.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is filed assailing the order dated 25.03.2006 passed by respondent No.3 whereby he referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court while invoking the provisions under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 on a dispute as mentioned in the schedule and award dated 26.03.2012 passed by Labour Court No.1 Gwalior answering the reference in favour of workman by holding termination to be unlawful and directed for reinstatement along with 20% back-wages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/employer had primarily raised two pivotal grounds:-

(i) As the establishment of Gwalior Vyapar Mela Pradhikrana is not an Industrial Establishment, therefore, no such dispute which comes within the purview of 'Industrial Disputes' exists.

(ii) As in the establishment of Gwalior Vyapar Mela Pradhikaran, no sanctioned vacant post of Clerk-cum- Computer Operator exists, therefore, the impugned award thereby directing the reinstatement of respondent No.1 is illegal and contrary to law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Somdutt Sharma reported in (2021) 12 SCC 53 submits that in the said judgment the Hon'ble Court has held that since the Irrigation Department does not carry on the manufacturing process, therefore, Irrigation Department will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25-L of Industrial Disputes Act. In the light of the said judgment, the Gwalior Vyapar Mela Prathikaran also will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25-L of Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The petitioner has denied that it falls under the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act since it is not carrying out any activity, which can be termed as manufacturing. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banglore Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Board Vs. Rajappa, reported as AIR 1978 SC 548 is still the leading judgment on the point. The famous triple test laid down in the said judgment still holds the field. The three tests for determining whether an establishment is an industry or not, are :

a) systematic activity b) organized by cooperation between employer & employees c) for the production and/or distribution of goods & services calculated to satisfy human wants or wishes.

5. A systematic activity which is organized or arranged in a manner in which the trade or business is generally organized or arranged, would be an industry, despite the fact that it proceeds from charitable motives.

6. A service provided to the public which satisfies human wants would also bring the establishment in the fold of 'industry'. By the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court overruled its earlier judgment and held that Safdarjang Hospital Delhi was an industry.

7. The Apex Court in the matter of Des Raj & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 537, while referring to various law developed at that time including its judgment passed by seven judges bench in Banglore Water Supply (supra) had dealt with the proposed amendment in the definition of 'Industry' as defined u/S.2(j), vide amending Act 46 to 1982, had dismissed and held as under:-

“….Then came the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors [1978] 2 SCC 213. This time the same point was before a seven-Judge Bench of this Court. This judgment undertood a review of the entire law. Krishna Iyer, J. spoke for himself, Bhagwati and Desai, JJ. In paragraph 139 of the judgment it was stated:

"Banerjee (supra) amplified by Corporation of N