SPORTS AUTH. OF INDIA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. After reference is made to the Labour Court, the parties have adduced evidence on the points of the dispute and also on the additional issues raised with regard to the plea that the Appellant is not an industry. The additional issue was treated as preliminarily issue and considered at the stage of passing an award after adjudication of the dispute referred to the Labour Court but the Appellant neither adduced any evidence nor any argument is made by it before the Labour Court on the above issue. But the Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and applying the law laid down by the seven Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v/s. A. Rajappa and Ors. : AIR 1978 SC 548, recorded a finding of fact holding that the Appellant is an industry and thus answered the preliminary issue against the Appellant.

(2.) The issue with regard to the decision of justification of the order for termination holding that the workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service till the date of termination as also non -compliance of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal -cum -Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination order passed against the concerned workmen is not justified in the eyes of law and accordingly the points of dispute referred to it were also answered against the Appellant herein. The Tribunal -cum -Labour Court further directed the Appellant herein to reinstate the services of each workman along with back wages and consequential benefits.

(3.) The said Award has been questioned by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal -cum -Labour Court on the points of dispute referred to it i.e. the preliminary issue regarding the contentions that the Appellant is not an industry.