MADHYA PRADESH BHAWAN Vs. SH SHIV KUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are between the same parties and have hearing on each other. Therefore, these were taken up for arguments together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Writ Petition (C) No.667/2002 arises out of award dated 20th August 1991 passed by Labour Court No.2 in I.D. No. 233/89. By means of this award termination of services of Sh. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') is held to be illegal and unjustified and the Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. Madhya Pradesh Bhawan (hereinafter referred to as the 'management') where the workman was employed, has filed this petition impugning this award. Writ Petition (C) No.3276/95 is filed by the workman for regularisation of his services against the post of Air-conditioning Plant Operator on the ground that he has been working on this post for the last number of years.

(3.) It would be appropriate the first deal with WP (C) No.667/92 challenging award of the Labour Court. Madhya Pradesh Government is maintaining its building in Delhi known as Madhya Pradesh Bhawan. This Bhawan was established to provide free lodging and boarding facilities essentially to VIPs, Ministers, Officers/Officials of the Government of Madhya Pradesh visiting Delhi or New Delhi for official work. To provide lodging and boarding facilities, various categories of employees are deployed therein. The employees working in this Bhawan are employees of Government of Madhya Pradesh. However, the workman was employed by this Bhawan on November 9, 1985 as Air- conditioning Plant Operator on daily rate basis. His services were, however, terminated on 8th April 1988. Workman raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court No.2. In the impugned award the Labour Court found the termination to be void ab initio being in violation of mandatory provision contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the 'Act') as neither any notice was served or notice pay given in lieu thereof nor retrenchment compensation paid. It was also found that this termination was in violation of Section 25G of the Act since principle of 'first come last go' was not followed. During arguments, learned counsel for the Bhawan challenged the impugned award primary on the ground that Madhya Pradesh Bhawan was not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and, therefore, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is this aspect which needs determination in this writ petition.