9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The validity of the respondent's retirement at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act: The primary issue is whether PRL qualifies as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had previously determined that PRL is an 'industry' based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, which defined 'industry' broadly. The Labour Court noted that PRL conducts research in an organized and systematic manner with cooperation between itself and its employees, and the discoveries and inventions made could be eligible for sale. However, the Supreme Court in this judgment reevaluated the nature of PRL's activities. PRL is a research institute established by Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, primarily funded by the Central Government, and engaged in advanced research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary atmosphere, aeronomy, earth science, solar system studies, and theoretical physics. The Attorney General argued that PRL's research activities are not trade or business, and the knowledge acquired is utilized for governmental benefit rather than for sale or distribution. The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid out in the Bangalore Water Supply case, emphasizing that 'industry' involves systematic activity, organized cooperation between employer and employee, and the production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants and wishes. The Court noted that the absence of profit motive is irrelevant, but the nature of the activity and the employer-employee relationship are decisive. Applying these principles, the Court observed that PRL's activities do not involve the production or distribution of goods or services for human wants. The research conducted by PRL is not intended for sale, and the knowledge acquired is primarily for the benefit of the Department of Space. The Court concluded that PRL is not engaged in an activity analogous to business or trade, and thus, it does not qualify as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The validity of the respondent's retirement at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years: The respondent was appointed as a Scientific Glass Blower by PRL and continued in that role until he was transferred to a non-technical and administrative post in 1976. He was retired at the age of 58 years, which he contested, arguing that he should have been retired at 60 years. The Labour Court held that the respondent, having worked in a technical post for a long period, should not be considered an administrative employee merely due to his transfer towards the end of his career. It declared the retirement order invalid and entitled the respondent to back wages for the period between his retirement and the age of 60 years. However, since the Supreme Court determined that PRL is not an 'industry,' the Labour Court's jurisdiction to decide on the respondent's retirement age under the Industrial Disputes Act was invalidated. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Labour Court's award, including the order for back wages. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Labour Court's award, and concluded that PRL is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment emphasized that PRL's activities, being research-oriented and not aimed at producing or distributing goods or services for human wants, do not meet the criteria of an 'industry.' Therefore, the respondent's retirement issue was also invalidated due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. No order as to costs was made.
|
