Executive Director, RIICO and Another vs Judge, Labour Court and Another

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—The instant special appeal impugns the order dated March 13th 2001 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

The brief facts depict that the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in April, 1989 in regard to the legality and propriety of termination of service of respondent-workman Bhagwan Sahai who was employed on April 23rd, 1987 as Messenger and was removed from service in April, 1988 without the payment of retrenchment compensation.

Undeniably, the workman had completed 240 days in service. The learned Labour Court had held that the order of termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947 (for short, "1947 Act") and full benefits of continuance and back wages had been awarded. The learned Single Judge even though, confirmed the finding of retrenchment but reduced the backwages awarded to the respondent-workman.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that since the Udhyog Bhawan where the respondent-workman was working is not an "industry", the respondent-workman did not fall under the definition of "workman". This argument was raised before the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge but both the Courts after elaborate discussions have concurrently held that as the building was being maintained by four industrial concerns for their facilities with their head offices situated in the said building under joint venture of Udhyog Bhawan by appointing a Director as well, it was an industrial establishment.

While confirming the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge, we hold that if an industrial establishment maintains any office any where singly or jointly with any other industrial establishment and if that office is put under the supervision or charge of an establishment, such establishment shall be "industry" within the definition of Section 2(j) of 1947 Act.

The learned counsel next contended that since the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of 1947 Act were attracted, the workman was not entitled to any relief. We find no merit in this contention also. There is no material on record to show that the need of the workman was over therefore compliance of Section 25F of 1947 Act was not necessary. Even otherwise this argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Although, ground in regard to applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of 1947 Act was incorporated in the writ petition but it is incumbent on the appellant to show by filing of affidavit of the counsel who argued the matter before the learned Single Judge that he raised the arguments but it was not considered.

For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed with cost which is quantified to Rs. 5,000/-.