A PICHAL NADAR Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as unskilled labour on 26.11.81 in the second respondent management, Khadi and Village Industries, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on a monthly salary of Rs.750/ - plus Rs.90/ - as Dearness Allowance. When the petitioner reported duty on 3.2.87, he was denied employment without any reason. Hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute against his non -employment which was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.539 of 1991 which was later transferred to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.496 of 1992. The Labour Court framed the following issues for its consideration: -

(2.) Whether the non -employment of the petitioner from 3.2.87 was justified, and if not, what relief the petitioner was entitled to?

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the said conclusion was arrived by the Labour Court that Khadi and Village Industries is not an "Industry" based only on the definition of Sec. 2(j)(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by Amendment Act 46 of 1982. The said amendment has not come into force even today much less the date of the award. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that Khadi and Village Industries is not an "Industry" as the same has been excluded by the above amended Sec. is not correct. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel brought to my notice the observation of the Supreme Court made in the judgment reported in "1998 (I) LLJ 817 (ALL INDIA RADIO v/s. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS)" wherein the Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider as to whether the amended Act 46 of 1982 has come into force or not and held that the amendment to Sec. 2(j) has not come into force and so long as the amending definition has not come into force, it must be held that the appellants (viz., All India Radio) therein are industries within the meaning of Sec. 2(j). The learned counsel also brought to my notice a similar observation made by a learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in "(THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MELCHENGAM WEST POST, MELPALLIPATTU v/s. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND ADDL. COURT, MADRAS AND OTHERS)". The learned Judge in paragraph 9 of the said judgment has observed that the said amendment Act 46 of 1982 has not come into force. The learned counsel submitted that once it is held that the amendment has not come into force, the second respondent has to be considered as "Industry" within the definition of Sec. 2(j) of "the Act" and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with back -wages as held in the award.