DIRECTOR TOURISM DEPARTMENT THIRUVA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Petitioner approached this Court challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of one Saraswathy, member of second respondent union, with backwages and other consequential benefits from 20.4.1993. Even though notice was received from the Industrial Tribunal, appellant/petitioner did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Union adduced evidence by examining workman and award was passed. It is admitted by the appellant/petitioner that they have received a notice. They also did not apply for setting aside the ex parte order in time before the Industrial Tribunal as provided under the Rules. In fact, the award was passed after considering the evidence adduced before it.

(2.) Smt. Saraswathy was employed as a sweeper on daily wage basis from 2.12.1989. She continued the above employment for more than three years. But, she was denied employment with effect from 20.4.1993. She was paid Rs. 24/- per day at that time. These facts are not disputed even in the Writ Petition. It is also not disputed that by terminating the services of Saraswathy, the conditions prescribed under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were not complied with.

(3.) Two main contentions are urged before us. First contention is that, being a Government undertaking doing sovereign functions of the State, petitioner's establishment is not an industry and the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable on the appellant. The workman was employed in the Tourism Department, that too, as a sweeper in a guest house. There are manager and other employees in the guest house. Rooms are let on different rates to government employees as well as the public and a commercial activity is being carried on there. Government guest houses run by the Tourism Department are not doing any sovereign functions of the State and considering the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Others, 1978 (2) SCC 213 , we are of the opinion that the contention that it is not an industry is not tenable. (See also: General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao and Others, 1997 (8) SCC 767 . We also note that in Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 1994 (1) KLT 187 , it was already held by this Court that tourism department is an industry and it is not discharging any sovereign functions.