Vasdev vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

R.S. Mongia, J.—The petitioner was working as a Mali with Paraplegic Home (North), Mohali, District Ropar. His services were terminated and he raised Industrial Dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to go into the matter whether the termination of the services of the workman was justified and in order.

The Labour Court, Patiala vide its award dated 9.12.1986 non suited the petitioner by holding that the respondent paraplegic Home was net an industry u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. While coming to this conclusion, the Labour Court relied on the Amended Section 2(j) of the Act which has not been enforced as yet. Consequently, findings on the basis of the amended Section 2(j) of the Act that respondent is not an Industry, is not correct. Having reached this finding, Labour Court did not go into merits of this case.

For the foregoing reasons, I accept this writ petition and set aside the award and remand the case to the Labour Court, Patiala to decide the case afresh. The Labour Court would be at liberty to go into the matter as to whether the respondent is an Industry or not under the un-amended Section 2(j) of the Act. If, it comes to the conclusion that respondent is an Industry under the un-amended Section 2(j), needless to say, the Labour Court would then decide the case on merits.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Patiala on 16-9-1991. Since, the matter is quite old, the Labour Court will take expeditious steps to finalise the matter preferably with 9 months from the date of appearance. There will be on order as to costs.