Madras High Court
State Of Tamilnadu Represented By Its ... vs Presiding Officer, Principal Labour ... on 26 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)IILLJ331MAD
Author: V. Kanagaraj
Bench: V. Kanagaraj
ORDER V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. The petitioner herein is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Executive Engineer (Construction), Industries and Commerce Department, which has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to call for the records of the first respondent made in I.D. No. 1152 of 1989, dated October 4, 1991 and quash the same.
2. Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/State is present and argued his case whereas on the part of the respondents, especially the third respondent, who was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased/second respondent and who is the contesting respondent, neither himself nor through his counsel was present not only this day but on many hearings in the past and hence this matter has to be decided with the available materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State.
3. The subject-matter is an industrial dispute that was referred to the first respondent/Labour Court for determination of certain questions and the Labour Court by its order dated October 4, 1991 decided that the second respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thus setting aside the dismissal order passed by the petitioner against the second respondent and ordering reinstatement of the second respondent in service with back wages and all other benefits that he is entitled to.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner/State has come forward to file the above writ petition on certain grounds as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would stick to the legal point that the petitioner is not the 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to refer the dispute to the first respondent/Labour Court nor the first respondent/Labour Court has jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and pass orders as it has done in so far as making the impugned order. The learned Government. Advocate would further contend that in spite of this plea having been raised before the Labour Court, the same was not taken up for consideration nor considered as it is required by law in order to decide the issue, which is, almost a pre-condition for the Labour Court to deal with the matter and hence would argue that the impugned order is bad and the same has to be quashed.
5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite a judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh and Anr., (1983-I-LLJ-309) (P&H-FB), wherein it is held at p. 322:
"45. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 535 of 1980, again the issue was identical. The workman in the said case was admittedly an employee of the Construction Division of the Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch). In the writ petition, the point was squarely raised that the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) did not carry out any trade or business and in fact carried on a sovereign activity of the Government and was, therefore, not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Act. The learned single Judge took the view that the Bangalore Water Supply Board's case, (1978-I-LLJ-349) (SC) covered this issue as well. With great respect, for the detailed reasons, recorded above, that view is unsustainable..."
6. From the above Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is clear that the workman in the said case was admittedly an employee of the Construction Division of the Public Works Department and that the Public Works Department does not carry out any trade or business and in fact carries on a sovereign activity of the Government and is therefore not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the Government body i.e., the Industries and Commerce Department, under whom the second respondent was employed and hence the ratio propounded in the above Full Bench Judgment squarely applies to the case in hand and in such event the first respondent taking it for granted and treating petitioner/Government Department an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the deceased second respondent as its 'workman' and based on such illusion having dealt with and passing the order impugned has given way only for the entire impugned order to get vitiated in law. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court is to quash the order passed by the Labour Court, Madras in I.D.No. 1152 of 1989, dated October 4, 1991.
7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of the Principal Labour Court, Madras dated October 4, 1991 made in I.D. No. 1152 of 1989 is hereby quashed.
8. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.