UMASHANKAR JASWAL Vs. ROYAL AUTO CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the Undertaking, wherein the appellant was employed, was not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Act. The order of the labour Court has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in a Petition under article 227 of the Constitution. The workman is before this Court in appeal.

(2.) The respondent-employer had a proprietory concern by the name of "royal Auto Centre". The business of the firm consisted of purchasing automobile spare parts in Mumbai and supplying them to parties outside the State of Maharashtra. The workman was engaged in April, 1987 for carrying out the work of packing of spare parts and his services were dispensed with on 12th march, 1991. From the evidence on record, it emerges that besides the workman, the employer engaged one other person who was described as a Trainee. The business of the respondent was carried out from the premises of a shop.

(3.) The Labour Court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and ors. , reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 and came to the conclusion that the establishment of the respondent was not an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j). The Labour court held that the establishment had only two employees, one of whom is a trainee and there was no organized labour force for distribution of goods or rendering any services in the establishment of the employer. The work of packing, the Labour Court held, could well be done by the employer himself and there was no organised activity or co-operation between employer and employee. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21st August, 1997 affirmed the view of the Labour Court and held that it cannot be said that any organised labour was engaged in the establishment of the employer nor could it be said that there was a plurality of workmen engaged in the establishment of the employer. A small "upmarketing business activity" carried on by the employer could not be termed as a systematic activity organised by co-operation between employer and employee for distribution of goods or services.