COORDINATOR, HFRI Vs. DEVI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India is aggrieved by the award rendered by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. In the impugned award before this Court the reference, as laid before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, was answered in favour of the workman and against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has submitted that the findings as recorded on Issue No. 1 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, are infirm in the face of a judgement recorded in State of Gujarat and others vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, 2001 9 SCC 713, mandating therein that in the absence of the petitioner averring and consequentially substantiating by potent material, the factum of the respondent constituting "an Industry", no finding in favour of the workman on issue No. 1 could have been rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, especially when in the instant case the material on record omits to demonstrate either existence of an averment in the petition laid by the petitioner before the authority aforesaid of the respondent being "an industry" or also material in substantiation thereto having been adduced by the petitioner before the authority aforesaid who rendered the impugned award. Relevant paragraph 5 thereof is extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) However, the said submission as addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, falls apart in view of the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Rakesh Kumar vs. The Forests Research Institute, 1991 1 ShimLC 62, wherein this Court on an encyclopedic and incisive research of the case law governing the factum of whether the employer/respondent fulfills the enshrined parameters for it to constitute an Industry or not, has held that the petitioner herein, who is also the respondent in the said case, while fulfilling all the essential and enshrined germane parameters for its being reckonable to be its constituting "an industry", was, as such, held to be "an industry". In face thereof the findings recorded by the learned authority qua the factum of the respondent-employer being an Industry, are not interferable nor also it is hence necessary to either dwell upon or adjudicate the initial submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the address before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner anvilled upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, is ill-founded. The learned counsel for the petitioner agitated before this Court that the reference is stale, inasmuch, as, it is belated. However, the said contention, too ought not to merit approbation by this Court in the face of it being palpably established on a reading of the impugned award that the workman had since his termination/retrenchment from service had uninterruptedly kept the dispute alive. Consequently, the industrial dispute raised and couched in the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cannot be construed to have faded. Submission rejected. Writ petition dismissed.