SECRETARY S N TRUSTS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXHIBIT P. 1. order passed by the first respondent, the Labour Court, Quilon on an application filed by the second respondent under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is the Secretary, Sree Narayana Trusts, Quilon; and the second respondent was an employee under the petitioner.

(2.) THE second respondent entered service under the petitioner as a Demonstrator in Zoology in Sree Narayana College, Quilon, in July, 1949. In 1953 he was appointed the Superintendent of the Marine Station at Thangasseri, started by the petitioner to function as a quasi-educational unit, but which in actual working developed itself into a commercial establishment, having no academic pretentions. He was fully relieved of his teaching duties and was absorbed as a full-time employee of the Marine Station in 1955. Towards the middle of 1967 the Marine Station was wound up; and he was designated Superintendent of the Sree Narayana Trusts Scientific Works, the object of which was to manufacture and trade in scientific equipments and materials. His service was terminated on 24-7-1970. It was to claim the benefits due to him consequent on his termination, which he described as retrenchment, that the petition under Section 33c (2) of the Act was filed. The first respondent has decided the matter in favour of the second respondent, determining the benefit due to him at Rs. 10,416.

(3.) THE main, if not the sole, contention raised by the petitioner before the first respondent was that the petitioner was not engaged in any industry attracting Section 2 (j) of the Act, and the petitioner was not an employer as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act. This contention was considered by the first respondent in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext. P1 order; in paragraph 9 it also discussed the question whether the second respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and the findings recorded are in the affirmative; in favour of the second respondent. These findings, on their merits, are not seriously disputed before me not only for the good reasons given by the first respondent during the course of the discussion, but, presumably, also for the reason that that contention is no longer available to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 1978-I L. L. J. 349.