DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ORGANIZATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Chandigarh (being Management), has filed the present Writ Petition for quashing the Notification, dtd. 28/2/2014, vide which, the Award, dtd. 3/2/2014 (Annexure P-9) in I.D. No.624/2KS (Annexure P9), has been published by the Central Government and received by the Petitioner, vide communication No.CGIT/2014-15/51, dtd. 25/4/2014.

(2.) Pleaded case of the Workman before the learned Tribunal is that he was an Ex-Serviceman, and was appointed a Security Guard at the Management's campus, vide appointment Letter, dtd. 23/3/2000, against the monthly Salary of Rs.2408.00 per month. He worked up-till January 2001. Also pleaded that he served for more than 240 days in preceding one year from the date of termination. Thus, his termination is in violation of Sec. 25-F of the ID Act, and he is entitled to reinstatement with full Back Wages. On the other hand, Management pleaded that the Workman was appointed as 'security guard' w.e.f. 1/3/2000 vide appointment Letter, dtd. 23/3/2000, by reserving a right that the Director, CSIO, will have the right to relieve anyone from security arrangement without assigning any reason. Thus, while defending the termination of the services of the Workman, Management submitted that the case is covered under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, and Workman cannot claim that he has been retrenched in violation of Sec. 25-F of the ID Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Management submits before this Court that Petitioner-Management does not fall within the definition of 'industry', therefore, the provisions of the ID Act would not be applicable and relationship of 'Employer & Employee' also does not exist. While submitting so, Counsel for the Management (Petitioner herein) relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Gujarat v. Pratamsing Narsinh Parmar, 2001 (2) LLN 41 (SC) : 2001 (9) SCC 713 and submits that there being no material brought on record by the Workman (Respondent No.2 herein) to call the Management as 'industry', no protection can be extended to him under the ID Act. Counsel reads out Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the aforesaid Judgment, which are reproduced here under also: