State of Tamilnadu vs Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and Others

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The petitioner herein is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Executive Engineer (Construction), Industries and

Commerce Department, which has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to call for the

records of the first respondent made in I.D. No. 1152 of 1989, dated October 4, 1991 and quash the same.

Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/State is present and argued his

case whereas on the part of the respondents, especially the third respondent, who was impleaded as the legal representative of the

deceased/second respondent and who is the contesting respondent, neither himself nor through his counsel was present not only this day but on

many hearings in the past and hence this matter has to be decided with the available materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned

counsel for the petitioner/State.

The subject-matter is an industrial dispute that was referred to the first respondent/Labour Court for determination of certain questions and the

Labour Court by its order dated October 4, 1991 decided that the second respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, thus setting aside the dismissal order passed by the petitioner against the second respondent and ordering reinstatement of

the second respondent in service with back wages and all other benefits that he is entitled to.

Aggrieved, the petitioner/State has come forward to file the above writ petition on certain grounds as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of

the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would stick to the legal point that the petitioner is not the ''Industry'' within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to refer the dispute to the first respondent/Labour Court nor the first

respondent/Labour Court has jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and pass orders as it has done in so far as making the impugned order. The

learned Government. Advocate would further contend that in spite of this plea having been raised before the Labour Court, the same was not

taken up for consideration nor considered as it is required by law in order to decide the issue, which is, almost a pre-condition for the Labour

Court to deal with the matter and hence would argue that the impugned order is bad and the same has to be quashed.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite a judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court delivered in State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and Another, , wherein it is held at p. 322:

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 535 of 1980, again the issue was identical. The workman in the said case was admittedly an employee of the

Construction Division of the Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch). In the writ petition, the point was squarely raised that the

Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) did not carry out any trade or business and in fact carried on a sovereign activity of the

Government and was, therefore, not an ''industry'' within the meaning of the Act. The learned single Judge took the view that the Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, covered this issue as well. With great respect, for the detailed reasons, recorded above,

that view is unsustainable...

From the above Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is clear that the workman in the said case was admittedly an

employee of the Construction Division of the Public Works Department and that the Public Works Department does not carry out any trade or

business and in fact carries on a sovereign activity of the Government and is therefore not an ''industry'' within the meaning of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is the Government body i.e., the Industries and Commerce Department, under whom the second respondent was employed and

hence the ratio propounded in the above Full Bench Judgment squarely applies to the case in hand and in such event the first respondent taking it

for granted and treating petitioner/Government Department an ''industry'' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the

deceased second respondent as its ''workman'' and based on such illusion having dealt with and passing the order impugned has given way only for

the entire impugned order to get vitiated in law. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court is to quash the

order passed by the Labour Court, Madras in I.D.No. 1152 of 1989, dated October 4, 1991.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of the Principal Labour Court, Madras dated October 4, 1991 made

in I.D. No. 1152 of 1989 is hereby quashed.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.