http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6144 of 2005

PETITIONER: Garrison Engineer (Utility)Bhatinda

RESPONDENT: Shri Narinder Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning  correctness of the award dated 25.8.2003 made by the  Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum  Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the  ’Labour Court’). 2.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3.      Respondent was engaged as Mazadoor on daily wages  basis during various periods from 1.1.1985 to 15.1.1987.  He  was engaged as per the requirement of the department on the  basis of specific sanction of muster roll vacancies from time to  time.  However, the aforesaid sanction did not exceed 25 days in  one stretch of period under any circumstances and the period of  Sundays and holidays were also included in the above period.   As the services of the respondent no.1 were no longer required,  his engagement was terminated on 16.1.1987.  After about five  years respondent no.1 sought for a reference and claimed that  his services were to be regularized.  He claimed that he has  worked for more than 240 days and, therefore, the termination  of service without following the procedures of the Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ’the Act’) was bad in law.  The  appellant filed reply to the claim petition.  It was specifically  pleaded that the appellant is a part of the Defence Department  and is not an industry and, therefore, the reference was not  maintainable.  Labour Court did not specifically deal with this  aspect and holding that the respondent had rendered services  for 240 days, his termination was not sustainable.  The award  was challenged before the High Court. Apart from the other  controversies a specific plea was raised that the appellant is not  an industry and, therefore, the Act has no application.   

4.      The High Court by the impugned order held that the  requirements of Section 25F of the Act had not been complied  with and, therefore, the order of the Labour Court was not to be  interfered with.  

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic  plea that the Act has no application and the appellant cannot  be treated as an industry, has not been considered.

6.      Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted  that the order of the High Court does not suffer from any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

infirmity.   

7.      From a perusal of the orders of the Labour Court and the  High Court, it is noticed that the factual position has not been  analysed in detail and abrupt conclusion has been arrived at.   Additionally, the legal issue regarding maintainability of the  reference was not considered. Right from the beginning of the  proceedings before the Labour Court and in the High Court,   appellant had taken specific plea that the Act was not  applicable to it and it was not an industry.  Unfortunately, as  noted above, neither the Labour Court nor the High Court dealt  with this issue.

8.      Above being the position, we set aside the orders of the  Labour Court and the High Court and remit the matter to the  Labour Court to decide the objection raised by the appellant  about the maintainability of the proceedings under the Act,  founded on the claim that it is not an industry.  The other  factual aspects shall also be considered on evidence being led  by the parties.  

9.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as  to costs.