UMASHANKAR JASWAL Vs. ROYAL AUTO CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employer Royal Auto Centre as well as the employee Shri Umashankar Jaswal are aggrieved by the award dated 1. 1. 1995 passed by 3rd Labour Court and both of them have filed separate writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 627 of 95 is filed at the instance of the employee wherein he seeks to challenge the award dated 1. 1. 95 passed by 3rd Labour Court whereby his demand that he should be reinstated with continuity of service and full backwages w. e. f. 12. 3. 91 was rejected. On the other hand the employer M/s. Royal Auto Centre in its writ petition no. 698 of 97 impugns the correctness of the finding recorded by the said Labour Court on issue no. 4a relating to the question whether the employer has proved that no industrial dispute existed between the parties on the date of reference. In case no merit is found in W. P. 627/96 filed by the employee, the writ petition filed by the employer is not required to be examined on merits.

(2.) SHRI Umashankar Jaswal (employee) was employed by M/s. Royal Auto Centre (employer) in the month of April, 1987. The employee joined Mumbai Kamgar Sabha in the month of January, 1988. It is the case of the employee that during the period from December, 1990 to February 1, 1991 his father was sick and therefore he look leave from the employer and went to his native place. The employee's services were terminated on 12th March, 1991. The employee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Labour. Ultimately, the conciliation failed and the conciliation officer submitted his failure report and an industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court to the effect whether the employee was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages w. e. f. 12. 3. 1991. The employee filed his statement of claim on 22nd January, 1993. The employer contested the statement of claim and in its written statement setup the plea that it was not industry within the meaning of Sec. 2 (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The employee examined himself as well as Shri Chandrakant Desai in support of his case while the employer examined Shri Kuldip Singh Chadha. The Labour Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties held that the employer was not an industry as defined under Sec. 2 (j) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The Labour Court also held that the employer failed to establish that no industrial dispute existed between the parties on the date of reference. However, in view of its finding that employer was not industry under Sec. 2 (j) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The reference was rejected.

(3.) MR. Gehani, the learned counsel appearing for the employee urged that employer was an industry within the meaning of Sec. 2 (j) of the I. D. Act and the tripple test laid-down by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 548 is fully satisfied and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in holding that employer was not an industry within the meaning of Sec. 2 (j) of the I. D. Act, 1947.