INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL Vs. P O CGIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for determination, in this writ petition is, whether the opp.party-Water Technology Center for Eastern Region, Bhubaneswar (WTCER in short)is an industry as defined under Section 2(j)of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (I.D.Act in short)

(2.) The factual back-ground leading to filing of the writ petition is that the opp.partiesworkmen raised an industrial dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central)- cum-Conciliation Officer, Bhubaneswar and the conciliation having been failed, the Govt. of India in exercise of its power under sub-section(1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the I .D. Act vide order dated 2.3.2000 referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred as C.G.I.T.) for adjudication.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 2 SCC 213, The CGIT, Bhubaneswar held that though the petitioner is a research oriented organization of Scientists, the scientists themselves cannot carry on their project work without participation of the worker-class-employees. Simply from the mandate of the organization and the infrastructure facilities available in the center, it cannot be said that the activities of the organization are purely seasonal as claimed by the petitioner. It also held that in their counter, the petitioner-management admitted that the opp.parties-workmen were engaged on muster roll(as casual labourers)since the farms operation started in the year 1988 and their jobs have been entrusted to contract agency on 16.12.1990.This indicates that the research work of the institution is being carried on in an integrated manner with the co-operation of the workers as without them the predominating activity and object of the organization can never be reached. The entrustment of the works to a contract agency further indicates that the establishment is not possessed of non-employee character, the menial work performed by these workers and the work done by the scientists being complementary to each other. In this premises, the establishment cannot claim exemption from the operation of Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. Accordingly, learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal held that the petitioner-organization by itself may be a research oriented one, but from the factum of engagement of the workers to carry out the basic work to augment the research activities, it can well be said that the whole undertaking is 'industry' although those who are not workmen by definition may not benefit by the status, vide order dated 29.7.2005. This order has been challenged before this Court in the present writ petition.