Bhanjibhai Rajabhai Solanki vs Energy and Petro Chemicals Deptt.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.07.2005 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 1985/1993 whereby the Labour Court rejected the said Reference of the petitioner. The facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 17.02.1983 as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the pay scale of 260-400. Petitioner had continuously rendered his services for about 8 years and had completed 240 days continuous service. On 16.06.1990, without giving any notice/notice pay/compensation or without following procedure of law, the petitioner was terminated from his services. Therefore, he raised industrial disputes by filing Reference (LCA) No. 1985/1993 which was rejected on 27.07.2005 by the order of Labour Court Ahmedabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Reference was rejected only on the main ground that respondent is not an Industry under the definition of 2(J) of I.D. Act. Section 2(j) of I.D. Act reads as under:

2 (j) "industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

Ms. Amita Shah, Learned AGP for the respondent has supported the order of the Labour Court and submitted that view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper and no interference is required in the said order. I have learned counsels for both the parties. The labour court had passed the impugned order after considering all the evidence and material placed on record. The respondent is not an industry and it runs only on no profit & no loss basis. Even the authorities which are carried out by Respondent is not industry as defined. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Labour Court and no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and same is dismissed, accordingly. If it is permissible under law, it will be open for the petitioner to adopt any recourse. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.