C.W.P No.10377 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.10377 of 1999
Date of Decision: 03.08.2009
2. C.W.P. No.10526 of 1999
Field Marshal Manekshaw Auditorium and another .....Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. C.G.S.C.,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The twin writ petitions challenge the order of the Labour
Court directing reinstatement of the workman and 40% back wages
with continuity of service at the instance of the management in respect
of two different workmen and are being disposed of together.
2. The workmen’s contention was that they had been appointed
as Sweepers on temporary basis in the Manekshaw Auditorium that
was run by the HQ, Western Command, Chandimandir and their
services were terminated due to alleged non-availability of funds on
06.04.1995. The contention on behalf of the management was that the
Auditorium was maintained by Army as a place for recreation for Army
C.W.P No.10377 of 1999 -2-
personnel and it had no commercial activity to be attracted to the
definition of ‘industry’. The contention was, therefore, that there was
no jurisdiction for the Labour Court to determine the case. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-management refers to the terms
and conditions of employment and points out to the fact that all that
was required was to serve 30 days notice for which no reasons were
required to be assigned and the termination had been effected only after
giving such notice. The workmenn are not entitled to complain about
the termination as being opposed to law.
3. The Labour Court found that the management was carrying
on a systematic activity in arranging picture shows, drama, lecture etc.
for entertainment of the Army personnel and the mere fact it was
controlled by the Army Authorities would not take out the activity from
the definition of ‘industry’. The Court also reasoned that absence of
any profit motive would be no ground to declare that the management
was not an industry. Further referring to a decision of the Bombay
High Court in Ramchandra Vithuji Kothare Vs. The Industrial Court,
Nagpur and another 1985 LIC 1786 it held that any condition of
service that had been privately entered into between parties cannot
operate to over-ride the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and
the benefit which the Act provides to persons under Section 25-F. The
award came to be, therefore, passed providing for reinstatement as well
as back wages.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not able to
advance the case any better in the matter of reasoning than how it was
projected before the Labour Court. The definition of industry is
expansive enough to accommodate any form of systematic activity and
C.W.P No.10377 of 1999 -3-
it will be immaterial that it is run by the Army. In another decision of
the Bombay High Court in Rajendra Singh Institute No.1, Pune Vs.
Maharashtra Labour Union 2003 CLR 725, the issue was whether a
workman employed in an Army Mess could claim to be a workman and
raise an industrial dispute. The Bombay High Court referred to the
decision in The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
Rajappa and others etc. etc. 1978 II LLJ 73 and held that any form of
activity that was systematic in character including organization run by
Government would qualify for the definition of industry. If an Army
Mess could be an industry, a recreation centre run by the Army would
require no different treatment.
5. Admittedly, the termination had been made without issuing
notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour
Court was correct in stating that any terms and conditions of
employment cannot over-ride the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act
and whittle the benefit that the Act grants to a workman. The mere
offer of a month’s salary as provided in the terms and conditions cannot
substitute what the law entitles to a workman to obtain under Section
25-F. There has been a non-compliance of the statutory mandate of
Section 25-F and for the illegal termination that was effected, the
remedy by reinstatement will not be appropriate, having regard to the
nature of engagement. In my view, a compensation of Rs.1 lac each
for the number of years of service that the workmen had put in and the
length of time that the litigation had taken, would be appropriate
remedy and meet the interest of justice. The amount of Rs.1 lac to each
of the workman shall be paid within 8 weeks from the date of the
award, failing which the respective sums shall carry simple interest @
C.W.P No.10377 of 1999 -4-
7.5% per annum.
6. The awards of the Labour Court are modified and the writ
petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 03 , 2009
Pankaj*