CHAIRMAN, D. I. T Vs. CHAIRMAN, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 59 of 1979 rejecting the petition summarily.

(2.) Facts are not in dispute. Respondent No.2 was an employee of the Dacca Improvement Trust (DIT), He was tried by Special Magistrate on a criminal charge but was acquitted on the ground that' the case was triable by the ordinary criminal Court. Thereafter the departmental proceeding was initiated against him which is still pending. He, however, filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming subsistence allowance for 60 days and full wages with effect from 5.2.1974. Labour Court came to the conclusion that the DIT is a commercial establishment and the respondent No. 2 is a worker within the meaning of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 and accordingly granted the prayers. The decision of the Labour Court was challenged by way of writ petition by the DIT. The High Court Division summarily dismissed the petition holding that the employees of the DIT had come within the definition of worker under the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act and since DIT is a commercial establishment or industrial establishment within the meaning of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, no interference is called for. Leave was granted to consider whether the DIT is a commercial establishment or industrial establishment within the meaning of the Standing Orders Act and whether the respondent No. 2 is a worker within the meaning of the said Act.

(3.) The point raised is an important question. Though the High Court Division had summarily dismissed the petition yet the reason given in the judgment, on scrutiny, appears to be a circuitous one. To quote from the High Court Division judgement: