SECRETARY Vs. PRAKASHBHAI D RATHOD & 1 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the legality and validity of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference LCV No.539/2000.

(2.) The brief facts are as under;

(3.) Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner establishment is an establishment which is not set up for profit motive, it is merely a Charitable Trust set up solely with a view to help the people who are suffering from Leprosy disease and therefore these persons like respondents are not the employees of the Trust. Therefore, the petitioner being a Charitable Institute cannot be even termed as an industry. Mr. Clerk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents to indicate that the Trust is set up not for the profit motive nor for any commercial goal and has drawn the attention about the object and activities of the Trust as reflected from page 21 of the petition compilation. It was also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has been financially assisted in the form of interest free loan of Rs.5000/- for rehabilitating him in the society and has submitted that after taking such loan on 27.03.1995, he on his own has not come back to this establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the receipt attached to the petition compilation at page 37. It was also brought to the notice that one of the Trustees of the petitioner's Trust has specifically deposed before the learned Presiding Officer that Trust is not getting any grant from the Government, it is imparting its activity solely on the assistance of donation which are received. It was also brought to the notice that the respondent was merely a trainee, getting training of footwear making and he was not an employee of the Trust. It was also drawn the attention from the examination of the said Trustees that respondent has demanded the loan for rehabilitating himself in the society and the same was provided, and after getting said amount he on his own left the petitioner's Trust and, Trust has not prevented or discontinued him from coming in any manner to the Trust. Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned counsel has further drawn the attention that the respondent and his wife both were suffering from this disease of Leprosy and in the similar way to mis-utilize the sympathy by filling simultaneous proceedings. The wife has also raised industrial dispute before the learned Presiding Officer of labour court, Vadodara. The Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention to the said Reference which came to be decided on 24.06.2005, which was filed by wife of respondent and has submitted that the said Reference upon due examination of material on record of similar nature came to be dismissed and against that no further proceedings appear to have been carried on and therefore this being identical situation, this litigation in the form of Reference generated by respondent deserves to be dismissed on the similar way. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Trust activities are valuable service to the needy people in society and the Trust is running solely on the basis of donations, and not running on other financial assistance and therefore if such kind of situation is allowed to be operated upon, it was contended that very object of the Trust will be frustrated and the Trust would lead to a situation of closure, and therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that since the activities of the Trust are smoothly being monitored, and the accounts are being regularly audited and the Trust is imparting its valuable service of this nature may not be allowed to be mis-utilized by the persons like respondents and therefore requested the Court to quash and set aside the impugned award passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Learned counsel has contended that while dealing with Reference the learned Presiding Officer has ignored the ratio laid down by well known decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 548 precisely in paragraph 132 at page 586 of the said decision and has committed grave error in exercising jurisdiction, since the petitioner's Trust is based on philanthropic, devotion and wholehearted dedicated mission service to the society. The work of the respondent in the Trust for sometime may not be treated as an employment and therefore contended that the learned Presiding Officer has seriously committed an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned award. Looking to the material on record since the serious error of jurisdiction as stated above is committed by the learned Presiding Officer, the counsel has requested the Court to set aside the impugned award.