Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Ors. on 28 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR462
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 27.3.1985 (Annexure P-3) passed by Labour Court, Patiala.
2. Petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.
3. Respondent No. 2 was an employee of petitioner-committee as a Sewadaar (Tola) and was drawing salary of Rs. 250/- per month.
4. During the employment of respondent No. 2, he misused the funds and used the slips (Parchis) of Karah Parshad which had already been used and, thus, committed fraud and embezzlement etc. in Gurdwara Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Patiala of which he was an employee.
5. Gurdwara Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Patiala Padshahi Naumi, is a notified Sikh Gurdwara under the control of Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter to be called Committee).
6. Respondent No. 2 was charge-sheeted. He was put under suspension and dismissed under Section 69 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act on 9,11.1979. Resolution No. 441 was passed by the Executive Committee. Copy of resolution is attached as Annexure P-1. Respondent No. 2 made a reference to the Labour Court, Patiala but the same was rejected by the Labour Officer on 4.3.1980.
7. Inspite of rejection, respondent No. 2 again moved Labour Commissioner who by means of an order under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 asked the Labour Court to adjudicate on the matter.
8. Labour Court respondent No. 1, game its award dated 27.3.1984. The petitioner-Committee failed to substantiate the order of termination of services of respondent No. 2. He was not guilty of misconduct and his order of termination was set aside. Respondent No. 2 was reinstated, for the period, he remained unemployed, he was given full back wages.
9. The petitioner-Committee against this award filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3452 of 1984. This Court vide its order dated 23.11.1984 quashed the award dated 27.3.1984 and remanded the case back to respondent No. 1 to decide it afresh on the point of jurisdiction, particularly in regard to the objection of the petitioner-Committee that it was not an industry and, thus, respondent No. 2 was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (Annexure P-2).
10. The Labour Court-respondent No. 1, vide its order dated 27.3.1985 decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 2 and declared that petitioner-Committee was an industry and respondent No. 2 is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2,
12. Industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is as follows:-
"Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;."
13. The learned Tribunal in its order has stated that where there is systematic activity organised by cooperation between employer and employee and the direct and substantial element is commercial for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants will come within the purview of an industry.
14. The Committee is not a commercial organisation and is not in the business of distribution of goods and services which satisfy human wants. The work of the committee is spiritual and religious. It is not a profit making body and is only to supervise and control the Notified Sikh Gurdwaras under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.
15. Distribution of Karah Parshad and by opening up free kitchen i.e. Langar would not bring the Committee under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act. Purely religious functions are being performed by the Committee, at times by paid employees and at times by free services by the devotees.
16. The allegations against respondent No. 2 were that he had misused the Porchis and embezzled the funds of the petitioner. Sh. Jagir Singh MW-3 conducted the enquiry and submitted his report Ex.P62 on the basis of which the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated. The order is attached as M3 in the Labour Court file. Other witnesses who came into the witness-box are Bhagat Singh, MW-1 and Amar Singh MW-2. There is no contradiction between the statements of these witnesses. They have stated that old slips i.e. Parchis were mis-sued and respondent embezzled the funds of the petitioner-Committee.
17. Petition is allowed. Order dated 27.3.1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, La bour Court, Patiala is set aside.