R SREENIVASA RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions that arise in this batch of writ petitions are whether M/s National Remote Sensing Agency, hereinafter described as 'NRSA' is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the reference made by the State Government can be said to be valid in view of the provisions of Section 2 (a) (i) and (ii) of the said Act. The question also arises whether in the event of 'NRSA' is to be held to be an 'industry' relief can be granted to the petitioners under Section 25 (F) of the said Act without deciding whether the reference by the State Government through Labour Court before the Industrial Tribunal was valid. Sub- clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) also falls for consideration. Each of the four writ petitions has been preferred against the awards of the Labour Court holding against the petitioners on two preliminary points. The first one related to the question whether 'NRSA' was an 'industry' and the second one was whether the State Government which made the reference was competent to make the reference. The Labour Court held on the first question that 'NRSA' was not an industry and on the second question it was not competent for the State Government to make the reference and that it was only the Central Government which should have made the reference. In view of the findings, the Court also held that the third point whether the termination of the petitioners amounting to retrenchment did not survive and that therefore no relief can be granted under the fourth point. In other words, the matters were decided on the first two points which were preliminary in nature. Questioning these orders the workmen preferred these writ petitions.

(2.) In these writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar contended that the findings of the Labour Court on these two preliminary points are incorrect, and that, in any event, without deciding the question whether the reference is valid or not, this court could give relief under Sec. 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, provided the findings of the first question, namely, whether the 'NRSA' is an industry is to be given in favour of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the provisions of Sec. 25 (F) read with provisions of Section 25 (B) (2) of the said Act which contain provisions that notwithstanding the interruptions in the service the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and are entitled for the benefits of Section 25 (F), of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, it has been contended by Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for 'NRSA' that the findings of the Labour Court on the two preliminary points are correct and that no relief can be granted under Section 25 (F) of the Act unless the petitioners prove that there was continuity in service and that in any event, in view of the provisions of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo), the writ petitioners are not entitled to treat the non-renewal of contract of employment as termination amounting to retrenchment.