Gujarat High Court
Vaghela vs Gujarat on 12 May, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5259/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5259 of 2010
=========================================================
VAGHELA
SHANTILAL A & 7 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 8.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 12/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing on behalf of petitioners.
The petitioners have challenged award passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.2304 of 1994 dated 30th March 2001. The Labour Court has rejected the reference on the ground that Gujarat Public Services Commission is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mishra and I have also perused award passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad. I have also considered delay in filing present petition while challenging award dated 30th March 2001 after a period of nine years. For that, no explanation is given by petitioner in present petition. I have perused petition filed by petitioner. Nowhere delay of nine years has been explained by petitioner. Therefore, after period of nine years, when delay is not explained by petitioner, such petition cannot be entertained by this Court as per reported decision of Apex Court in 2006 SCC (Lab. & Service) p. 791 and decision of this Court reported in 2006 (2) GLH 472.
Another aspect on merits is that respondent establishment raised preliminary objections before Labour Court while submitting application Ex.11. The preliminary objections raised by respondent that present respondent GPSC is not an 'industry' as the activities which have been carried out by GPSC and nature of duties which is to be performed by GPSC is under Article 320 of the Constitution of India which amounts to sovereign function of State Government and GPSC has been constituted and function of GPSC has been decided under Article 320, Chapter II of the Constitution of India which has been considered by Labour Court. The Labour Court has observed that whether any establishment is an 'industry' or not and it can be examined nature of work performed by such establishment. Therefore, considering Article 320 of the Constitution of India, the naure of work which is required to be performed by GPSC and considering decision of Apex Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply reported in 1978 SCC (2) 213 and decision reported in 1997 SC Today 469 in case of Telecom Department, ultimately, Labour Court has come to conclusion that GPSC is not satisfying triple test laid down by Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case and employees those who are working with GPSC are governed by Bombay Civil Services Rules and they are also considered to be Government employees and therefore, contentions raised by GPSC respondent that not consider to be an 'industry' and function of GPSC cannot be covered by definition of Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, Labour Court has rightly come to conclusion that GPSC is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Sec.2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mishra cannot be accepted, hence, rejected and view taken by Labour Court cannot consider to be an erroneous view which requires interference by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, on both grounds; delay as well as on merits; there is no substance in present petition, accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
[H.K. RATHOD, J.] #Dave Top