KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 30.11.2007 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent committee.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar with respondent No. 3 Committee from January 1990 and his services were terminated on 3.7.1999 without following the due process of law. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner where vide order dated 30.10.2006, the labour Court held the reference bad in law as not having made by the appropriate government Under Section 2(a) of the I.D Act and therefore the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) No. 18357/06. Entertaining the writ petition, this Court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter back to the labour court for an expeditious trial on merit. Thereafter vide order dated 30.11.2007, the labour court held the reference against the petitioner on the ground that the respondent committee is not an "industry" Under Section 2(j) of the I.D Act and the petitioner is not a "workman". Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Vide order dated 3.3.2010 both the parties were put to the notice that serious view will be taken by this Court if any of them is found telling falsehood to the court and directions were also given for the production of the relevant records of the respondent inclusive of employees wage register, attendance register and salary register w.e.f. 1990 till 1999. The petitioner throughout has been maintaining the stand, in the statement of claim filed before the labour court, in affidavit filed before the labour court and before this Court as well, claiming his appointment with respondent Rajghat Samadhi Committee w.e.f. January 1990 and his illegal termination from the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. July 1999 without due observance of any process of law by the respondent. The respondent management on the other hand has taken a consistent position that the petitioner workman had joined the respondent w.e.f. 18th May 1997 as a daily wager and has not actually worked with the respondent management for a period of 240 days preceding the date of his termination. In para 1 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has taken the stand that the petitioner worked on the post of the Chowkidar since September 1997 till July 1999. The respondent also seriously disputed the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act on the premise that the respondent management cannot be treated as an industry as envisaged under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act as the respondent Rajghat Samadhi Committee is not engaged in any commercial or industrial activities with any profit making objectives. As per the respondent, it is an institution discharging governmental and sovereign functions as enjoined upon the State under Article 49 of the Constitution of India.