STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KIDAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for adjudication in this appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the order dated January 25, 1991 passed 5 by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of Labour Court, Gurdaspur, is whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the reference made by the State Government for decision of the dispute relating to termination of services of the respondent-workman.

(2.) SHRI Rupinder Khosla argued that the reference made by the Government to the Labour Court was not maintainable because neither the Zila Sainik Board falls within the definition of Industry under Section 20) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor the respondent No. 1 is covered by the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the 5 Act. Learned counsel argued that the Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge have seriously erred in rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the employer to the maintainability of the reference.

(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submission of Shri Khosla but do not find any merit in it. A careful reading of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the employer (appellant herein) has challenged the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the Zila Sainik Board neither undertakes any commercial activity akin to trade or business nor any profit is earned by it and therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked by its employees. The Labour Court rejected this plea by making the following observations :