BIHAR RELIEF COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner, the Bihar Relief Committee through its General Secretary, Sri Y. K. Lall, in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is to quash the order bearing no. 3/D1-100/67/75-Sra-Nee-690, dated 27th May, 1975 passed hy Sri Lagandeo Singh, Joint Commissioner and Conciliation Officer of the Government of Bihar, respondent no. 2, by which, the petitioner was informed that the retrenchment of some of its employees would be referred as an industrial dispute as the petitioner had not participated in the conciliation proceeding relating to such retrenchment.

(2.) The petitioner, according to its case, is a humanitarian, charitable and social service institution established with the sole object of rendering relief to the suffering humanity caused by natural calamities like Hood, drought epidemic etc. Its objectives be opening of relief centres, importing useful knowledge, publishing informatory literature relating to relief work and bringing about consciousness of social service in the community.

(3.) Since its inception in the year 1966-67 when the petitioner was registered, as a society, under the Societies Registration Act, it has rendered charitable relief to the victims of famine, drought and diseases, Relying upon (the help and charity of individual association and Government, it participated in rendering succour to the famine striken people of Bihar caused by unprecedented drought in Bihar in 1967. After conducting such famine operation the petitioner continued its activities so as to provide irrigational facilities in certain selected areas of Bihar as a measure of permanent relief and has opened and organised several relief centres throughout the State. It has organised minor irrigation schemes with the help of Government ami voluntary organisations at different places in the State. For the implementation of its programme the petitioner employed a number of employees on a temporary basis with clear indication that services would be terminated without any prior notice. Due to organisational, operational and functional difficulties the Executive Committee of the petitioner, by its resolution dated 2.101974, deciding to wind up its activities relating to minor irrigation schemes. This resulted in 27 employees becoming surplus and hence by orders dated 3.1.1975 and 4.1.1975 and 4.1.1975 copies of which are Annexures 2 and 3 respectively, the services of those employees were terminated. Respondent no. 4, Udhan Narain Gupta, Joint Secretary of the Bihar Relief Committee Workers Union, by a letter dated 4.1.1975 protested against the retrenchment of the aforesaid employees as being in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referrei to as the Industrial Act) and the rules framed thereunder ; copy of the letter is Annexure 4 Respondent no 4 represented to the Labour Department Government of Bihar, as well against such retrenchment, in pursuance whereof Respondent no. 2 in;tiated a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Act of which notice was sent to the petitioner asking it to take part in such conciliation proceeding to be held on 14th February, 1975 ; copy ( f the notice is Annexure 5, Sri Y. K. 1. all, the Joint Secretary of the petitioner, requested respondent no 2 for time and also asked for details of the dispute pending before him bv a letter, copy of which is Annexure 6. In reply the respondent no. ' by a letter dated 20th February, 1975 postponed the conciliation proceeding to 1 3 1975 and sent the petitioner the demands of the Bihar Relief Committee Worker's Union as contained in their application dated 4.1.1975, Thereafter, Sri Y. K Lall asked for time to consider the legal questions involved and by a letter dated 2.4.1975 requested the respondent no 2 to drop the conciliation propeeding on the ground that the provision of the Industrial Act had no application to the dispute pending before him, copy of which is Annexure 8. It was stated in this letter that the activities of the petitioner are essentially humanitarian in character. It was also pointed out that the petitioner never functioned either as an industry or as an enterprises motivated by profit. By a communication dated 27th May, 1975, copy of which is Annexure 9, the respondent no. 2 rejected the contention that the petitioner was not an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Industrial Act. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for time to move this court as an important question of law was involved and filed the application.