Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In this writ petition the short point of challenge is thrown by the Central Leather Research Institute (for short CLRI), Regional Office to the Award dated 12th November, 2014 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata in Reference Case No. 11 of 2008 (for short the Award, the Tribunal and the Reference respectively).

By the Award, the workman, being the present private respondent No.1, was directed to be reinstated in the service of CLRI with full back wages since the Tribunal held the termination of the private respondent No.1 to be illegal.

Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Ld. Counsel appearing for CLRI submits that the Award is jurisdictionally flawed since the Tribunal did not consider at all whether CLRI is an 'Industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 1947 Act).

The second issue argued by Mr. Bajpayee is that the private respondent No.1 was only associated with different projects of the CLRI as a Research Assistant and, therefore could not qualify to be a regular workman under the 1947 Act.

Therefore, answering Mr. Bajpayee's contention that CLRI is not an 'Industry', this Court notices that CLRI fulfils the triple tests as laid down In Re: Bangalore Water Supply (supra). For the sake of recapitulation the triple tests are (a) systematic activity; (b) employer and employee relationship; and (c) production of goods and services.

The averments at Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition (supra) leave no room for doubt that CLRI renders research assistance which caters to the needs of the Leather Industry. In such view of the matter the research work of CLRI directly relates to production of goods which are relevant for the leather Industry in terms of its excellence, expansion and related business activity. Such excellence and expansion contribute to the national and global markets for leather products.

This Court must therefore notice, in the backdrop of the above noted discussion, that research in leather products beneficial to the Leather Industry cannot qualify to be a sovereign function of the State. This Court adds that at Paragraphs 12 and 13 of In Re:

Physical Research Laboratory (supra), the content of the research undertaken by PRL is categorically different from the research content of CLRI since, the latter is directly connected to the production and distribution of material goods. The further categorical difference between the two research institutes is that the research content of CLRI, unlike that of PRL, is intended to cause benefits in terms of material growth to a manufacturing/processing industry dealing with tangible leather goods.