Bombay High Court: The present petition arose out of challenge to the Award dated 15-5-2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, in a case by which the reference relating to termination of the petitioner’s services with effect from 8-8-2005 was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., stated that the Central Government did not authorize ARAI to carry out every function that it undertook, and that the respondent-Automotive Research Association of India (‘ARAI’) was not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and it was just an association formed by Indian Vehicles Manufacturers. The Court held that the Labour Court’s finding that the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the Central Government was set aside as the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the State Government.
Background
ARAI, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established with the objectives of promoting research and other scientific work connected with design, development, manufacture, and operation of motor vehicles, internal combustion engine, products of industries, etc. and to assist the research work of associations or institutions, whose objects include scientific and industrial research. The petitioner joined services of ARAI as Technical Assistant in 1980 on probation of one year and was later absorbed in the regular service by order dated 23-6-1981. Petitioner got further promotions and while working as Senior Project Engineer, a show-cause notice dated 30-7-2005 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he was engaged in private business with his son and was accepting illegal gratification from various Three-Wheeler Manufactures by assisting them in getting clearance for their certification at ARAI. By letter dated 8-8-2005, ARAI terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect by crediting salary for three months in his account.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by his termination order, was advised to file original application in Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide validity of termination order issued by ARAI. Thereafter, reference was made by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune to First Labour Court, Pune (‘the Labour Court’), regarding the petitioner’s termination with effect from 8-8-2005 and for relief of reinstatement with continuity and backwages. The Labour Court, by an Award dated 15-5-2024, rejected the Reference holding that the same to be not maintainable and held that the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the Central Government. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner did not fit into the definition of the term ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’). Thus, the Labour Court’s Award dated 15-5-2024 was under challenge in the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issues for consideration were:
1. Whether the Appropriate Government in respect of ARAI was Central or State Government?
The Court referred to Section 2(a) of the ID Act, wherein the term ‘appropriate government’ was defined and stated that in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried ‘by or under the authority of Central Government’, the appropriate Government was Central Government. The Court opined that the rigour of test of industry being carried out ‘under the authority of Central Government’ was stricter than the test of being an autonomous body of the Central Government. An autonomous body enjoyed some degree of autonomy in performance of its functions even though the Central Government might exercise deep and persuasive control over it. On the other hand, if an industry was carried out under the authority of the Central Government, there would be complete control of the Central Government on activities performed by the establishment.
The Court stated that ARAI could not escape from being treated as an autonomous body of the Central Government but would continue to be an industry carried out under the authority of Central Government. Thus, the Court opined that ARAI was not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and it was just an association formed by Indian Vehicles Manufacturers. It performed various functions other than certification of vehicles and all its functions were not carried out under the authority of the Central Government.
The Court stated that the Central Government did not authorize ARAI to carry out every function that it undertook, and certification of vehicles was just small part of activities of ARAI. Thus, the Court held that the Labour Court grossly erred in holding that the Appropriate Government for ARAI was Central Government, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner of the State Government rightly made a Reference relating to termination of the petitioner to the Labour Court. Thus, the Court held that the Reference was perfectly maintainable as it did not suffer from any inherent error of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the petitioner could have invoked jurisdiction of the Labour Court in view of his status as a Senior Project Engineer?
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s services were terminated without holding an enquiry by levelling allegations against him in the show-cause notice. The Court stated that mere designation of a person was not indicative of the exact nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by him/her, however, there were several factors which indicated that the predominant nature of his duties and responsibilities were either supervisory or managerial.
The Court took note of tour programs of the several employees that were sanctioned by the petitioner in his capacity as Senior Project Engineer and opined that the petitioner was performing supervisory functions by sanctioning the tour programs of other employees. The Court observed that the position of a Senior Project Engineer was immediately below the position of an Assistant Director and thus, opined that it could not be contended that such a senior level official would be offered to an ordinary workman performing predominantly manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, or clerical work.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs 30,000 at the time of his dismissal on 8-6-2005 and opined that considering the salary structure prevalent in India in the year 2005, it was difficult to believe that ordinary workman drew salary of Rs 30,269. The Court stated that it was difficult to believe that the petitioner discharged the burden of proving that predominant nature of his duties involved skilled and technical work and he did not work in managerial and supervisory capacity.
The Court also stated that the petitioner provided no explanation as to how if he was an ordinary workman, could be deputed for training to Germany. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, therefore, there was no error in the view taken by the Labour Court. The Court thus passed the following order:
-
The Labour Court’s finding that the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the Central Government was set aside. Thus, the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the State Government.
-
The Labour Court’s findings that the petitioner was not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act was upheld.
[Pandurang Punja Avhad v. ARAI, Writ Petition No. 12676 of 2024, decided on 10-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Petitioner;
For the Respondent: Avinash Jalisatgi with Varun Joshi, Chetan Alai, and Divya Wadekar for Respondent.
