9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Telephone Nigam Limited, Bombay is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the employees working in the canteen are 'workmen' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute. 4. Remedies available to the dismissed employees. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Telephone Nigam Limited, Bombay is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The Tribunal held that the Telephone Nigam Limited, Bombay is not an 'industry' based on the judgment in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Posts, Vaikkam v. Theyyam Joseph, which stated that a departmental canteen is not an 'industry'. However, the petitioner contended that this decision was contrary to the judgment in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, which provided a broader interpretation of 'industry'. The Court in Bangalore Water Supply case laid down that the term 'industry' includes any systematic activity organized by cooperation between employer and employee for the production or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes, irrespective of profit motive. 2. Whether the employees working in the canteen are 'workmen' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act: The respondents argued that the canteen employees were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Act and were holding civil posts in the Central Government. The Tribunal concluded that the employees working in the canteen were not 'workmen' as they were paid monthly salaries devised by the Canteen Committee and were treated as holding civil posts. 3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute: The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as the Telephone Nigam Limited was not an 'industry'. The Court noted that the determination of whether an establishment is an 'industry' involves considering the nature of the activity, the employer-employee relationship, and the systematic organization of the activity. The Court recognized the need to balance the competing rights of individuals and the State, and the importance of providing just, fair, and reasonable procedures for terminating employees. 4. Remedies available to the dismissed employees: The Court held that since the canteen employees were holding civil posts and paid monthly salaries, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act. Instead, the appropriate remedy for the dismissed employees was to approach the constitutional Court under Article 226 or the Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Court emphasized that the employees could seek redressal through judicial review or common law review if no statutory rules or certified Standing Orders were applicable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as the canteen employees were holding civil posts. The Court directed the dismissed employees to seek remedies through the constitutional Court or the Administrative Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the Telephone Nigam Limited was not an 'industry' and that the canteen employees were not 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized the importance of providing just and fair procedures for terminating employees and ensuring their right to seek redressal through appropriate legal channels.
|
