C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999
Date of Decision: 19.08.2009
Angrej Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
P.O. Labour Court, Gurdaspur & others ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab
for the respondents.
2. C.W.P. No.5043 of 2000
Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
P.O. Labour Court, Bathinda & others ...Respondents
Present: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab
for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 is against an award rejecting the
relief sought by the workman that he had been illegally terminated
on the ground that Soil Conservation Office in which the workman
was working, although was established under the Agriculture
Department of the Punjab State, was not an “industry”. In C.W.P.
No.5043 of 2000, a reference sought by the workman was rejected at
C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -2-
the threshold without undertaking any further enquiry that
Agriculture Department would not come within the ambit of the
definition ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act. The challenge
is by another workman who, as petitioner in C.W.P. No.11040 of
1999 contends that it is an “industry”. The officer who had been
examined on the side of the State had given evidence to the effect
that the Department supplies medicines, fertilizer and agricultural
implements to the farmers without any profit and in certain cases
pesticides are supplied to the farmers with subsidy varying from 50%
to 75%. The evidence was also that the Department does not carry
out any research on diseases in the agriculture crops but renders only
advice as to how to get rid of such diseases, without any
remuneration. It was also in evidence that the Department of
Agriculture issued licence to the shop keepers for the sale of
pesticides/fertilizers for which licence fee was charged. Relying on
the decision of this Hon’ble Court in State of Punjab Vs. Sukhdev
Singh decided in C.W.P. No.8878 of 1993 on 18.11.1993, it held
that Agriculture Department was not an industry within the meaning
of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Surprisingly, in C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999, there was not
even a plea or evidence that the Agriculture Department was not an
industry and the Labour Court proceeded to give a finding against
the workman even in the absence of a specific issue to that effect. In
C.W.P. No.5040 of 2000, there had been such an issue and by a
reference to the judgment of this Court referred to above, it was held
to be an “industry”. The test for consideration whether a particular
C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -3-
organization, unit or department is an industry shall be by examining
whether there is a systematic activity which is carried on. It is
irrelevant that there is no commercial motive for the same. The
distribution of medicines, fertilizers, agricultural implements and
pesticides which the Agriculture Department of the Government
engages in for improving productivity in the agriculture sector and
for fostering the needs of the agriculturists shall be seen as an
activity that shall answer the definition made under Section 2(j) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(j) defines industry to mean
any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers or includes any calling service implement incorporation or
industrial occupation avocation of workman. An expansive meaning
to the definition of industry was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa
and others 1978 LIC 467. It is too late in the day to contend that the
Agriculture Department that engages itself in distribution of seeds
and pesticides, among other activities, could be denied the status of
an industry and defeat the right of persons, who were working in
their capacity as workmen, to secure redress through the mechanism
provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. In C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999, the Labour Court has found
that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service but
still did not give any relief by the fact that the Presiding Officer held
that the Department where he was working was not an industry. In
the other case namely C.W.P. No.5043 of 2000, the reference itself
had been rejected without undertaking any enquiry. In view of
C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -4-
present finding that the respondent-management is to be treated as an
industry under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the
respective orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and
matter is remitted to the Labour Court for consideration of the
respective cases of the workmen on merits after appropriate evidence
that the parties may desire to let in and give adjudication as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months.
The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 14.09.2009.
4. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 19, 2009
Pankaj*