GARRISON ENGINEER (UTILITY) BHATINDAversusSHRI NARINDER SINGH

A                 GARRISON ENGINEER (UTILITY) BHATINDA
                                   v.
                          SHRI NARINDER SINGH

                                   MAY 21, 2007

B         [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

                                                                                      -\-..
          Labour Laws:

           Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Reference seeking regularisation of
C service-Maintainability of-Employer's case that the Act not applicable to
  · it since it cannot be treated as an industry-Held: Courts below failed to
 . '-analyse factual position and also the issue rega~ding maintainability of
     Reference-Thus, orders of courts below set aside and matter remitted back
     to the labour court.
D         Respondent was engaged as daily wager with the appellant-Defence
    Department. Services of the respondent no.1 were terminated. He filed
    reference and claimed regularization since he had rendered services for more
    than 240 days and, thus the termination was bad in law for non-compliance of
    s. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant contended that the
E   reference was not maintainable since the Defence Department was not an
    industry. Labour Court held the termination not sustainable. Appellant
    challenged award. High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court. Hence
    the present appeal.

          Disposing of the appeals, the Court
F
           HELD: 1.1. From a perusal of the orders of the Labour Court and the
    High Court, it is noticed that the factual position has not been analysed in
    detail and abrupt conclusion has been arrived at Additionally, the legal issue
    regarding maintainability of the reference was not considered. Right from
    the beginning of the proceedings before the Labour Court and in the High
G   Court, appellant had takeri specific plea that the Act was not applicable to it
    and it was not an industry. Unfortunately, neither the Labour Court nor the
    High Court dealt with this issue. The orders of the Labour Court and the
    High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court to
    decide the objection raised by the appellant about the maintainability of the
H                                        744
           GARRISON ENGINEER(UTILITY)BHATINDA v. SHRI NARINDER SINGH[PASAYAT, J.) 745

        proceedings under the Act, founded on the claim that it is not an industry.      A
_..r-                                                 (Paras 7 and 81 1746-C,D,El

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6144 of2005.

             From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2005 of the High Court
        of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8005 of 2005.                     B
             R. Mohan, ASG., Asha G. Nair, R.C. Kathia and Anil Katiyar for the
        Appellant.

              P.N. Puri and Dhiraj for the Respondent.
                                                                                         c
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
        passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
        dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning correctness of
        the award dated 25.8.2003 made by the Presiding Officer Central Government       D
        Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as
 \      the 'Labour Court').

              2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

               3. Respondent was engaged as Mazadoor on daily wages basis during E
        various periods from 1.1.1985 to 15.1.1987. He was engaged as per the
        requirement of the department on the basis of specific sanction of muster roll
        vacancies from time to time. However, the aforesaid sanction did not exceed
        25 days in one stretch of period under any circumstances and the period of
        Sundays ·and holidays were also included in the above period. As the F
        services of the respondent no. I were no longer required, his engagement was
)-.     tenninated on 16.1.1987. After about five years respondent no.I sought for
        a reference and claimed that his services were to be regularized. He claimed
        that he has worked for more than 240 days and, therefore, the termination of
        service without following the procedures of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
        (in short 'the Act') was bad in law. The appellant filed reply to the claim G
        petition. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant is a part of the Defence
        Department and is not an industry and, therefore, the reference was not
        maintainable. Labour Court did not specifically deal with this aspect and
        holding that the respondent had rendered services for 240 days, his tennination
        was not sustainable. The award was challenged before the High Court. Apart       H
    746                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A from the other controversies a specific plea was raised that the appellant is
    not an industry and, therefore, the Act has no application.

          4. The High Court by the impugned order held that the requirements of
    Section 25F of the Act had not been complied with and, therefore, the order
    of the Labour Court was not to be interfered with.
B
         5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic plea that
    the Act has no application and the appellant cannot be treated as an industry,
    has not been considered.

          6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
C   order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

           7. From a perusal of the orders of the Labour Court and the High Court,
    it is noticed that the factual position has not been analysed in detail and
    abrupt conclusion has been arrived at. Additionally, the legal issue regarding
D   maintainability of the reference was not considered. Right from the beginning
    of the proceedings before the Labour Court and in the High Court, appellant
    had taken specific plea that the Act was not applicable to it and it was not
    an industry. Unfortunately, as noted above, neither the Labour Co:1rt nor the    :/:.
    High Court dealt with this issue.

E         8. Above being the position, we set aside the orders of the Labour
    Court and the High Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court to decide
    the objection raised by the appellant about the maintainability of the
    proceedings under the Act, founded on the claim that it is not an industry.
    The other factual aspects shall also be considered on evidence being led by
    the parties.
F
           9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
                                                                                     .X
    N.J.                                                     Appeal disposed of.