INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions by the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, a minority "research and educational institution", for short, the Institute, are directed against two separate notifications of the Delhi Administration, respondent No. 1, in each of the petitions, purporting to refer to the Labour Court, Delhi, respondent No. 2, alleged industrial disputes between the Institute and its workmen in respect of termination of the services of an employee K. S. Durrany, respondent No. 3, in C. W. P. 613/85, and of three other employees, respondents 3 to 5, in C. W. P. 614/85, under Ss. 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. C. W. P. 613/85 additionally assails the interim Award, made by the Labour Court in the proceedings arising out of the reference which is challenged in that petition. The common question that these petitions raise are : Is a minority institution beyond the reach of the Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of the constitutional guarantee of a minority based on religion, to administer educational institution of its choice ? If not, whether the provisions of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and certain other provisions of the Act, insofar as they are applicable to such a minority institution, are ultra vires by virtue of being an infraction of the said fundamental right ?

(2.) THE petitions have been filed in the back drop of the following circumstances. The institution claims to be a minority educational and research institute, said to have been established for the purpose of enhancing appreciation of Islam "in its manifest culture and diversity", and to make available "modern methods of investigation and research in the field of Islamic studies". Among the objects of the Institute are "the promotion and study of Islamic culture and civilization" and "imparting of education". The institute claims that in pursuance of its objectives it is running a school, conducting courses in Arabic and Persian, besides holding seminars, conferences and sponsoring religious projects and publishing a quarterly journal. It claims to have certain other projects in view pursuant to its various objects. In the course of its function, the Institute employs various persons for carrying out its activities, besides given "fellowship to scholars" for research in various areas within the compass of its objectives. According to the Institute, Dr. K. S. Durrany, respondent No. 3, in C. W. P. 613/85, was given a "fellowship for a period of 2 years", besides certain perquisites. The Institute also gave employment to respondents 3 and 4, in C. W. P. 614/85, as Library Assistants, and respondent No. 5, as an Attendant. For reasons, which are not relevant for our present purpose, the Institute terminated the services of the said 4 persons and after the usual conciliation proceedings, and the failure report, Delhi Administration purported to refer the said disputes, by two separate notifications, under Ss. 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the Labour Court, Delhi. In the case of Dr. Durrany, the Labour Court also made on his motion an interim Award allowing Dr. Durrany to keep the residential accommodation in his occupation and directed the Institute to pay him Rs. 500/- per month, from the date of his application, till further orders within one month from the date of the publication of the Award. Before the Labour Court, the Institute raised a number of contentions, both in reply to the statement of claim, and in resisting the application for interim relief, inter alia, that the Institute was not an "industry", that Dr. Durrany was not a "workman"; and that there was no ground for interim relief. The petitions assail the references in the two cases, as also the interim Award in one of them, not only on the grounds, which were raised before the Labour Court, but also on the additional ground that the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable to the Institute by virtue of the Institute being a minority institution, a contention that was not raised before the Labour Court.

(3.) HOWEVER, at the hearing, the assault on the orders of reference, the interim Award, and the proceedings based on the orders of reference, were solely mounted on the impressive edifice of the constitutional guarantee of a minority institution to "administer" as educational institution of its choice, as enshrined in Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The other grounds were apparently not urged because in case the main attack failed, it would naturally be for the Labour Court to determine the other questions, if the Institute was an "industry" and what was referred was an "industrial dispute" or not, as indeed, the various other questions on the merits.