SUMER CHAND Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a carpenter with the respondent-University. He was removed from service. He raised an industrial dispute and claimed a reference to the Labour Court challenging the termination of his services. Reference was made and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, vide his award dated March 27, 1989, found that the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, that is, the petitioner having completed 240 days will be deemed to be in regular service. It was conceded by the respondent-University before the Labour Court that no notice was given to the petitioner, nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. It was further accepted that someone or the other had been appointed as a carpenter in the University. Though the termination of services of the petitioner was found to be illegal, still the Presiding Officer declined to grant the relief to the petitioner, inter alia, holding that the Kurukshetra University was not an industry and, consequently, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try the dispute, as it did not constitute a dispute of industrial nature. The reason recorded for coming to such a conclusion was that the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable to the University because it did not carry on its activities for profit motive and its primary job was to impart education.

(2.) IN my considered view, the approach of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is erroneous and cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the principle well-settled by the apex court. It has been observed in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978-I-LLJ-349) that a University is an industry, particularly with respect to small workers like mali, chowkidar, carpenter, etc. Similar was the view taken in ). Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu (1989-I-LLJ-61 ). While determining whether the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, it is immaterial whether the activities carried on are for profit motive or not. 'industrial dispute' has been defined by Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under:

(3.) IN view of the conceded fact that neither any notice was given to the petitioner before his retrenchment, nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him and no enquiry was held before his services were terminated, I confirm the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. Nothing has been pointed out to take any other view than the one taken by the authority below. Otherwise also, it is a finding of fact arrived at after appreciation of evidence which has come on record, which need not be gone into in writ jurisdiction unless the same is shown to be based : on no evidence or perverse, etc. No such, stand has been taken by the respondent in the course of arguments.