State of Punjab vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.—The State of Punjab has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated February 4,1993 rendered in Reference No. 11/91 filed on February 18, 1991, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Sukhdev Singh son of Sadhu Singh, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ''workman'') was engaged on daily wage basis by the Horticulture Development Officer, Faridkot. The workman sought a reference from the appropriate Government to the Labour Court that his service were illegally terminated. The Horticulture Development Officer, Faridkot and the In-charge Government Garden and Nursery, Sarai Nagar, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, opposed the reference, interalia, pleading that the management/respondents to the reference was not an ''industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. It was also pleaded that the workman was a casual worker and he was given employment keeping in view the exigency of work.

The Labour Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues-

1) Whether the reference is not maintainable as pleaded in legal objections taken in written statement?

2) Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?

3) Relief.

Issue No. 1 was disposed of by the Labour Court with the observation that the management had failed to prove that the reference was not valid. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the workman worked for 239 days during twelve months preceding the date of his termination from services and he was not paid retrenchment compensation. In view of the answer to issue No. 2, the.., Labour Court directed that the workman be reinstated with continuity of service and also with full back wages with effect from August 16,1990.

A perusal of the statement of claim of the workman and the written statement filed by the respondents before the Labour Court reveals that the respondents took a positive stand that the Horticulture Department was not an industry and the reference was not maintainable. It appears that the Labour Court did not understand the scope and ambit of the objection raised. The Labour Court, from the pleadings of the management, inferred that the objection raised by it was that the claim of the workman was not maintainable. It did not understand that the objection was that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as the management was not an ''industry'' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. Mr. G.S. Cheema, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State of Punjab submitted that the Horticulture Department of the State of Punjab was not an ''industry'' and in support of his submission he relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3141 of 1981, decided on February 20,1990. This Court held that the Agriculture Department of the State of Punjab did not fall within the ambit of ''industry'' as defined u/s 2(j) of the Act. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in extenso:-

" There is no dispute that the Agriculture Department of the Punjab Government deals with the government activity. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Sh. Kuldip Singh and Anr. 1983 Lab. I.C. 83. that the State or governmental activities are of the following four classifications:-

1) The sovereign or the legal functions of the State which are the , primary and inalienable rights of a constitutional Government.

2) Economic adventures clearly partaking of the nature of trade and business undertaken by it as part of its welfare activities.

3) Organised activity not stamped with the total indicia of business yet bearing a resemblance to or being anlogous to trade and business;

4) The residuary organized governmental activity which may not come within the ambit of the aforesaid three categories.

Dealing with these four categories, it was held that although the second and third categories would be clearly which the spirit and letter of the definition of ''industry'' as given in Section 2(j) of the Act but the first and the fourth categories are to be judicially excluded from the ambit of the definition of ''industry''. Thus , to be within the ambit of ''industry'' a governmental activity must atleast be analogous to trade and business and there must be on element of an economic venture in governmental activity before it can be brought within the four corners of an industry.

It is not controverted that the function of the Agriculture Department of the Punjab Government is to render help to the agriculturists in the pursuit of farming. The nature of work of this department is largely advisory. It is not even remotely suggested that this department delves in economic ventures of any kind. It seems to follow that the character of activity of this department is neither that of, trade or business nor any economic Venture. Hence, the Agriculture Department of the Punjab Government cannot possibly come within the ambit of an ''industry'' as defined in the Act. The question posed in this case at the very outset must, therefore, be answered in the negative."

The Horticulture Department is a part and parcel of the Agriculture. Department and on the same parity of reasoning, it will not fall within the ambit of "industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. Since the Horticulture Department was not ''industry'', the reference itself was not maintainable. The workman may have any other remedy except by getting a reference made to the Labour Court u/s 10(1) of the Act.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds, the award of the Labour Court dated February 4, 1993 rendered in Reference No. 11/91 is quashed, but with no order as to costs.