Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987
Date of Decision:15.09.2008
Rajpal Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the
petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition is moved by Rajpal Singh under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 1.5.1987
(Annexure P-4).
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Moman Ram
Nai was employed in June, 1980 in the service of Rajpal Singh- petitioner at
his agriculture farm as a tractor driver. He used to get Rs.500/- per month.
He served upto May, 1982. Rajpal Singh paid him Rs.3,000/- only. The
rest of the payment amounting to Rs.9,000/- was withheld in spite of
repeated requests made by him. Moman Ram Nai moved an application
under sub-Section 2 of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for short, `the Act’) for recovery of Rs.9,000/-. The reference was made to
the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ambala. After perusing the oral
as well as documentary evidence, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court,
Ambala passed the impugned order holding that Moman Ram Nai worked
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -2-
on the farm of Rajpal Singh from 1980 to 1982 at the monthly wages of
Rs.500/-. He was paid only Rs.3,000/- and Rs.9,000/- remained outstanding.
During pendency of the reference, Moman Ram Nai was murdered by elder
brother of Rajpal Singh. So, widow and children of Moman Ram Nai since
deceased are entitled to Rs.9,000/-. Feeling aggrieved with the award,
Rajpal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner) has filed this
petition.
The respondent did not file the written statement to this
petition.
None has put in appearance on behalf of Naurati Devi, widow
of late Moman Ram Nai, respondent.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner besides
perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court with due care and circumspection.
Mr. J.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner is a small farmer
cultivating his land measuring about 10 acres. Moman Ram Nai, deceased
was inimically disposed towards the petitioner because of earlier litigation
between the parties and even the proceedings under Section 107/151 of
Cr.P.C were initiated between the parties. The deceased Moman Ram Nai
was a man of bad reputation. He wanted to grab the land of the younger
brother of the petitioner. At the instance and provocation of the rival group,
the deceased moved a false application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act for
claiming wages on the ground that he had worked for two years with the
petitioner as a tractor driver and that Rs.9,000/- were still due from the
petitioner. As a matter of fact, he was never an employee of the petitioner,
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -3-
who had been dealing his own cultivation and he was owning tractor. He
had produced the jamabandi and other evidence showing that the aforesaid
relation did not exist between the parties. Moman Ram Nai has died,
therefore, his widow Naurati Devi appeared on his behalf. From her as well
as Pholla Singh’s statement, it transpires that no such relationship ever came
to exist between the parties. It is further argued that `industry’ has been
defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. There is no evidence on the record to
prove that the petitioner, a small farmer as a unregistered company used to
employ labourers. Thus, the agriculture operation being carried out by the
petitioner in his own land does not fall within the ambit of `industry’. He
further argued that the judgment relied upon by the Presiding Officer of the
learned Labour Court is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. In
these premises, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions. Naurati Devi, widow of the deceased Moman Ram Nai in her
statement reproduced in the petition has testified that “I do not remember
that the respondent (referring to her deceased- husband Moman Ram Nai,
had been working at what place other than two years as mentioned above. I
do not know that if I own any tractor or not of my husband. Strangely
enough that she gave a evasive reply to a stark fact. Had her husband been
not owning a tractor, she would have denied this fact. It is in her further
evidence that if there is any land in the name of my husband “I do not
know.” Again she has obviously equivocalised the answer to a very material
question. It is very difficult to presume that she could not be cognizant of
these facts. Seemingly, she deliberately eschewed to answer these questions
in a specific and desirable manner. That being so, it has to be presumed that
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -4-
her husband did own tractor as well as the land. The testimony of Phoola
Singh bears the fact that Moman Ram Nai had one Eicher Tractor and he
used to cultivate his own land. This evidence further leads to an illation
that Moman Ram Nai did own a tractor as well as land. The petitioner in his
statement Annexure P.3 has solemnly affirmed that “Moman Ram used to
do his own cultivation and owned six killas of land and a tractor. I
produced a copy of the jamabandi of his land as Ex.RW/1. The respondent
has never worked with us. We have since sold our tractor ourselves. The
above said application has been moved because of groupism in the village.
The respondent was a man of very bad reputation and character. I do not
owe anything to him. I do know Naurati Devi. She is not related to Moman
Ram.” It is in his cross-examination that “Moman still owns a tractor,
which can be proved by me. Moman owned 8/10 killas of land. There were
107/151 Cr.P.C proceedings between me and Moman previously, copy of
which is with me at Karnal and that can be produced.” Firstly, by not filing
the written statement, the above reproduced statements of Naurati Devi as
well as Phoola Singh have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. The above
discussed evidence tendered by Naurati Devi before the learned Presiding
Officer of the Labour Court gives a inkling that she is not the widow of
Moman Ram deceased for the reason that had she been so, by all
probabilities she would have been in the know of the above-referred facts.
The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has put too much
premium on her statement by believing it. As noted supra, the petitioner had
also produced a copy of the jamabandi Ex.RW.1 showing the deceased
Moman Ram Nai to be owner of the land. If he owned land as well as
tractor it would be begging the question to hold that he was employed as
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -5-
driver by the petitioner. More importantly, when the parties were at logger
head how it could be assumed that the petitioner would have engaged
Moman Ram Nai as a tractor driver. To add further to it, as per the
statement of Rajpal Singh, (Annexure P.3), they used to ply their own
tractor. If they were having their own tractor, where was the necessity for
this small farmer to employ a tractor driver. The learned Presiding Officer
appear to have not appreciated the evidence as per the rules of evidence. In
the ultimate analysis, there can be no hesitation to hold that the relationship
of employer and workman did not subsist between the parties. The Apex
Court in re:- Harinagar Cane Farm v. State of Bihar and others, AIR
1964 Supreme Court 903 ruled as under:-
“It has been urged by the respondents that this decision
supports their argument that S.2(j) includes all agriculture and
agricultural operations, and in support of this proposition, they
have invited our attention to the statement in the judgment
delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., where it is observed that
the concept of industry in the ordinary non-technical sense
applies even to agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture and so on
and so forth. We are not impressed by this argument. The
context in which this sentence occurs shows that the Court was
there dealing with the ordinary non-technical sense according
to what is understood by the man in the street as the denotation
of the word `industry’ or business, and so, the observations
made in that connection cannot be taken to amount to the broad
and unqualified proposition that agriculture of all kinds is
included in S.2(j).
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -6-
It can be culled out from these observations that agriculture of
all kinds is not included in Section 2(j) of the Act. The learned Presiding
Officer of the Labour Court has also relied upon this ruling, but without
analyzing the observations with due care and caution made therein. In re:
Maheswar Rao and others v. State of Orissa and others, 1974 LAB. I.C.
1512, it has been observed that “from these decisions it would appear that
unless agriculture is adopted as a business or calling, the operations in the
hands of petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 cannot partake the character of industry.
It would, therefore, follow that that the petitioners do not run any industry
and any dispute in regard to employment under them would not constitute
“industrial dispute” within the definition of that term under the Industrial
Disputes Act. The referring authority without application of mind and
without examining the facts of the case suddenly proceeded to make the
reference in exercise of powers vested in it under the Act.” In the instant
case, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has not held that
agriculture was being adopted by the petitioner as a business or calling. So,
in my view, the deceased- respondent’s case is not covered by the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In view of the above discussion, the interference in the
impugned order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is
warranted. Sequelly, the impugned order dated 1.5.1987 (Annexure P-4) is
set aside by allowing this petition.
Disposed of accordingly.
September 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE