Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 37 (HP)

Coordinator, HFRI v. Devi Ram

2015-01-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The Union of India is aggrieved by the award rendered by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. In the impugned award before this Court the reference, as laid before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, was answered in favour of the workman and against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has submitted that the findings as recorded on Issue No. 1 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, are infirm in the face of a judgement recorded in State of Gujarat and others vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713 , mandating therein that in the absence of the petitioner averring and consequentially substantiating by potent material, the factum of the respondent constituting 'an Industry?, no finding in favour of the workman on issue No. 1 could have been rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, especially when in the instant case the material on record omits to demonstrate either existence of an averment in the petition laid by the petitioner before the authority aforesaid of the respondent being 'an industry? or also material in substantiation thereto having been adduced by the petitioner before the authority aforesaid who rendered the impugned award. Relevant paragraph 5 thereof is extracted hereinafter:- “5. If a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part of it wherein an appointment has been made is an industry or not, it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be an industry, to give positive facts for coming to the conclusion that it constitutes “an industry”. Ordinarily, a department of the Government cannot be held to be an industry and rather it is a part of the sovereign function. To find out whether the respondent in the writ petition had made any assertion that with regard to the duty which he was discharging and with regard to the activities of the organisation where he had been recruited, we find that there has not been an iota of assertion to that effect though, no doubt, it has been contended that the order of dismissal is vitiated for non compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. The State in its counter affidavit, on the other hand, refuted the assertion of the respondent in the writ petition and took the positive stand that the Forest Department cannot be held to be an industry so that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot have any application. In the absence of any assertion by the petitioner in the writ petition indicating the nature of duty discharged by the petitioner as well as the job of the establishment where he had been recruited, the High Court wholly erred in law in applying the principles enunciated in the judgement of this Court in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare to hold that the Forest Department could be held to be an industry.” 2. However, the said submission as addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, falls apart in view of the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in Rakesh Kumar vs. The Forests Research Institute, 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 62, wherein this Court on an encyclopedic and incisive research of the case law governing the factum of whether the employer/respondent fulfills the enshrined parameters for it to constitute an Industry or not, has held that the petitioner herein, who is also the respondent in the said case, while fulfilling all the essential and enshrined germane parameters for its being reckonable to be its constituting “an industry?, was, as such, held to be 'an industry?. In face thereof the findings recorded by the learned authority qua the factum of the respondent-employer being an Industry, are not interferable nor also it is hence necessary to either dwell upon or adjudicate the initial submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the address before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner anvilled upon the judgement of the Hon?ble Apex Court, is ill-founded. The learned counsel for the petitioner agitated before this Court that the reference is stale, inasmuch, as, it is belated. However, the said contention, too ought not to merit approbation by this Court in the face of it being palpably established on a reading of the impugned award that the workman had since his termination/retrenchment from service had uninterruptedly kept the dispute alive. Consequently, the industrial dispute raised and couched in the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cannot be construed to have faded. Consequently, the industrial dispute raised and couched in the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cannot be construed to have faded. Submission rejected. Writ petition dismissed. No costs.