Bal Bahadar vs Industrial Tribunal

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by learned Single Judge

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award dated 28.1.2011 rejecting his claim for reinstatement on the ground that the

reference was not maintainable, has been dismissed. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the appeal may be

noticed. The appellant was working as Parashadi Sewadar with the respondent-Radha Swami Satsang Beas w.e.f. 1.2.1989 to 8.7.2001. His

services were terminated on 9.7.2001 without any notice, charge sheet or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant raised industrial dispute and

the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal Amritsar for adjudication. The primary dispute was whether respondent No. 2 was an ''industry''.

After examining the matter, the Tribunal vide award dated 28.1.2011 came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was not an ''industry'' and

therefore, the reference was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed CWP No. 20539 of 2011 in this Court. Vide order

dated 3.12.2012, impugned herein, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying upon judgment of this Court in Mange Ram Vs. Presiding Officer and Another ,

wherein it was held that Radha Swami Satsang Beas was not an ''industry''. In the said judgment, it was recorded as under:-

As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Dera Beas is an ""industry"", when the above principles as laid down

by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board''s case (supra) are taken into consideration and applied to the

pleadings and evidence led by the parties before the Labour Court, it cannot be held that the evidence which has been led by the petitioner would

prove that the respondent-Dera Beas is an ""industry"". Again, the cross-examination of the petitioner at Annexure P-7 needs reference, relevant

portion whereof reads as under:-

xxx

Lacs of people come to Satsang Ghar for hearing Satsang. I do not know if satsang is conducted daily. It is correct that there is a langar place. It is

correct langar is free to all the visitors and residents of dera free of costs. It is correct thousands of people come from Foreign country to Dera for

hearing satsang. When Baba Ji gives satsang about three four lacs listeners came to hear the satsang. I do not know who makes arrangements for

visitors coming for satsang for their seating arrangements, living arrangements food and other necessary arrangements. I also do not know the no.

of sewadars involved in making arrangements for visitors for various needs. I do not know any other activity of Radha Soami Sat Sang Beas

except my personal work. I also do not know any activity or conduct of business of various departments like petrol pump, canteens, fire brigades

engineer store the store motor workshop water sewerage department as regards to their modus operandi and its aims and object. I do not know

about the involvement of Radha Soami Satsang Beas in any activity except my own work.

A perusal of the above goes beyond doubt to establish that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that the respondent-Dera Beas is an ""industry

as there is no evidence to support the contention raised by him. In this regard, mere oral assertion has been made by the petitioner without any

documentary proof. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no knowledge about the activities of the Dera Beas. That being so, the onus

which was on the petitioner-workman to prove that the respondent-Dera Beas is an industry, was not discharged leading to the only conclusion

that there was no sufficient evidence on record to declare Dera Beas as an ""industry"".

Further, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the appellant was ''workman'' as defined u/s 2(s) of the Act, as

there was nothing on record to show that there was relationship of employer and employee existing between the appellant and respondent No. 2.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity or illegality in the approach of the learned Single Judge and also the award dated 28.1.2011.

Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.