COMMANDANT CENTRAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, WARDHA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur dated 12th December, 2002. By the Award, the Tribunal has held that termination of services of 748 casual labourers w.e.f. 31.1.92 was not legal The said Tribunal has directed the petitioner to reemploy the labourers. Challenge to the Award basically is on the ground that on behalf of the petitioner specific objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Central Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner-Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon is not an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. This contention was raised in the Written Statement. The respondent did not file any rejoinder.

(2.) The petitioner has lead oral evidence of one of its Officers. The said witness in his deposition stated that the Central Ammunition Depot is not an "industry" and that it is performing purely sovereign function. According to the petitioner, though this witness was cross-examined, there is no cross-examination on this point. The respondents were the applicants before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, primarily the burden lay on them to establish that the Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon is an "industry". For that purpose, it was necessary for them to plead so and then lead documentary and oral evidence to establish that it is an "industry". The submission of the petitioner is that there is neither any pleading nor evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in its Award that the depot is an industry is not based either on any pleadings or evidence on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is true that the respondents nowhere pleaded that the Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon is an "Industry", yet because the witness examined on behalf of the respondents states about the nature of the duties performed by him, there is evidence on record to establish that the Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon is an "industry". It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the question as to whether the Central Ammunition Depot is an "industry" can be examined by this Court in this petition also.

(3.) Now, if it the light of the aforementioned rival submissions, record of the case is perused, it is clear that it was specifically contended in the Written Statement filed by the petitioner that the Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon is not an "industry". Really speaking, the respondent should have amended the statement of claim and disputed this position and should have claimed that it is an industry. But admittedly, the respondent did no such thing. The petitioner, thereafter, led oral evidence in support of the case. The respondent, it appears, did not cross-examine the witness on the point and in this situation, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had recorded the findings which reads as under: