SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY Vs. ALOK SHIVAJI SALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Writ Petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at Pune in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Appropriate Government. The impugned order has been passed on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by the Petitioners herein (original first party). The Respondent (original second party) applied for a reference before the Appropriate Government on the ground that he was appointed as an employee of the first party as, what he described in his application as, 'Assistant Librarian'. It was his case that he was a workman working with the first party and had completed 240 days of work in every year prior to his termination; his post was sanctioned and was of a perennial nature; and that he was improperly terminated when he was entitled to be made permanent. Upon the reference being made by the Appropriate Government (Reference (I.D.A.) No.346 of 2015), the first party raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court for maintainability of the reference. It was submitted that the second party was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also contended that the first party was an educational institute and was not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) On the rival pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed an issue of maintainability. The issue involves two aspects, whether the second party was a 'workman' of the first party and whether the second party was an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court took into account the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence of the second party, who had examined himself, and the evidence of the first party, both oral and documentary. The Labour Court observed that the second party was appointed on a monthly salary; the first party used to maintain his attendance sheet; it had given him an identity card identifying him as 'staff' of the first party; and that having regard to the nature of his work, which was to note new stock of books into a register maintained for the purpose, to classify the books and arrange them systematically, to give books to students as per their demands and take back the same from them, to note inward and outward number of books, constituted manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and as such, the second party fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as the character of the first party is concerned, the Court went by the law stated in the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa and Others, AIR 1978 SC 848. The Court held that according to the law stated in that case, an educational institution cannot be excluded from the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court, accordingly, held both issues in the affirmative and rejected the first party's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the reference.