Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 15-05-2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. upheld the order while holding that the petitioner was within the ambit of “Industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’) and that he had acted in contravention of Section 33 of the Act.
Background
The facts of the present matter are that the respondent was appointed as a temporary stenographer with the petitioner and was eventually promoted to the post of senior stenographer on an ad hoc basis. He was regularized on the said post on 01-06-1989.
Due to some alleged misconduct by the respondent, he was placed on suspension, and on the same day, a chargesheet was also served upon him. After the inquiry officer submitted his report, the respondent was compulsorily retired from his services vide memorandum dated 19-10-2000.
Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, wherein the decision was made in favour of the petitioner, and it was held that the respondent was not entitled to any relief as was prayed for.
The respondent then filed a miscellaneous application under Section 33-A of the Act, alleging that permission was not sought from the Tribunal before compulsorily retiring him during the pendency of the industrial dispute. The Tribunal, vide order dated 15-05-2006, held that the conduct of the petitioner was punishable under Section 31 of the Act and directed him to reinstate the respondent.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition and stated that the Tribunal had incorrectly held him to be an industry and erred in imposing a penalty as per Section 31 of the Act. It was also mentioned that 53 complaints were made against the respondent, and more than 85 memos had been served upon him for various charges, which led to him being compulsorily retired.
The respondent contended that the action of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 33-A of the Act which stipulates that the condition of service of an employee must remain unchanged during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the short question which fell for adjudication was whether the impugned order required intervention.
It was further noted that the Tribunal observed that the petitioner was an industry in view of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 (‘Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board case’), wherein it was held that an establishment that carries on philanthropic work would also be an industry.
Upon perusing the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act, the Court inferred that the term “industry” includes within its ambit any service or employment and also referred to Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board case (supra) to reiterate the same.
Further, the Court stated that since the petitioner was a research institute working in the field of homeopathy for the Government, with the systematic cooperation of the employer-employee and for the betterment of the country’s homeopathy department, it fell under the ambit of “Industry” as per the Act.
The Court stated that Section 33-A was a special provision and that two essential requirements for the maintainability of a complaint filed under this provision were whether there was any violation of Section 33 and whether the act complained of was justified.
The Court held that the petitioner was unable to put forth any propositions to make out a case in his favour, and that the Tribunal had rightly held that the respondent should be reinstated along with back wages.
The Court accordingly upheld the award passed by the Tribunal on 15-05-2006, stating that it was neither illegal nor infirm, and dismissed the petition as devoid of any merit.
[Central Council of Homeopathy v. Vijay Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3798, Order dated 16-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — n/a
For Respondent — Advocate Rajat Arora, Advocate Niraj Kumar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
