PREM CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned Award dated 14.7.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, whereby reference qua services of the petitioner has been declined. Mr. Sumit Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman was appointed-with respondent No. 2-M/s. Umrao Singh Aggarwal Farm House on 1.5.1986 as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on monthly salary of Rs. 900/- per month. In support of his case, the workman placed on record the various documents as referred to in the Award. The question which arose before the Labour Court as to whether in view of the definition of section 2(j) of the industrial Disputes Act, reference was maintainable or not. The definition of section 2(j) is clear and un-ambiguous. The agricultural operation does not include any activity carried on in a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951.

(2.) No judgment or law, in this regard, has been cited to say that the agricultural activities fall within the definition of Industry', therefore, the Award of the Labour Court is perverse. In the absence of any law cited and particularly in view of definition enshrined in section 2(j) of the Act, it is ex-facie held that the petitioner worked in the agricultural farm of the respondent and qua grievance of alleged termination, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. A private farm would not fall within the definition of the industry. Award of the Labour Court is fair, legal, justified and passed on appreciation of evidence brought on record. There is no illegality, much less, perversity in the Award of the Labour Court and the same is upheld.