BHARAT BHAWAN TRUST Vs. BHARAT BHAWAN ARTISTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Bharat Bhawan Trust, appellant herein, was established under the Bharat Bhawan Nyas Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The main objects of the said Trust are to preserve and explore, innovate, promote and disseminate arts and to manage and expand Bharat Bhawan as a national centre of excellence in creative arts. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "Bharat Bhawan" to mean the structure for multi-arts centre built in Bhopal and includes the premises described in the Schedule with all buildings contained therein together with all additions thereof which may be made after the commencement of the Act. Under the Schedule to the Act, apart from describing the boundaries thereto, it has been described to include -

(3.) Mr. B. V. Karant was appointed as the Director of the Rang Mandal and thereafter he was succeeded by Mr. Habeeb Tanveer, another eminent theatre personality as the Director. The appellant entered into an agreement with. 1) Gopal Dubey, 2) Anita Dubey, 3) Bhupendra K. Sahu, 4) Anoop K. Joshi, 5) Ravilal Sanghde, 6) Meena Sidhu, 7) Saroj Sharma, 8) Vibha Mishra, 9) Amar Singh Lehre, 10) Umesh K. Tarsakvar, 11) Amod Krishan Bhatt, 12) Sanjay Mehta and 13) Subhashshree, who are creative artists, for the purpose of production of drama and theatre management. They were also entrusted with certain other duties ancillary to production of drama and theatre management. Apprehending that their services were likely to be terminated or not renewed on the expiry of the contract, these artists filed a suit for declaration and injunction for regularisation of their services and against the revamping of Rang Mandal. Temporary injunction was refused. Thereafter, all the 13 artists, who approached the Court, entered into fresh agreement, which was to remain in force till 28-2-1997, and the suit was thereafter withdrawn. On 10-1-1997, the said artists raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in 33/97 ID and the artists filed their claims before the Labour Court and sought for interim relief. The appellant filed a statement of claim and reply to the claim for interim relief raising preliminary objection that the Trust is not an industry and the artists are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court made an interim award directing maintenance of status quo and restraining the appellant from terminating the services of these artists. The High Court by an order made on 16-10-1997 directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary objection raised by the appellant on the basis of the documents filed by the parties before the Labour Court. The Labour Court made an order on 17-1-1998 holding on the basis of the document filed by the parties that the appellant is an industry and the artists are "workmen". This order is in challenge in this appeal.