2019 (7) TMI 1286 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination of services - industrial dispute - instant writ petition raised an industrial dispute against the petitioners claiming that he was employed as peon by the petitioners on 22.2.1993 and that his services were illegally terminated on 7.10.1998 - HELD THAT - The reference as was made by the State Government was essentially erroneous. Since I have found that the reference itself was bad no finding is required to be given on the issues as to whether the petitioners were an industry and as to whether there was a relationship of an employee and employer existing between the parties. The petitioners were a body which got its existence because of a central enactment being Act No. 38 of 1949. If one goes by Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 it becomes clear that even an autonomous body which was doing industrial work and was governed by the Central Government then the appropriate Government for making the reference of the dispute was the Central Government. In this regard since the Act No. 38 of 1949 definitely shows that the petitioners were a body which was a result of a Central enactment because of which the petitioners found their identity any dispute which arose vis-a-vis the parties had to be therefore necessarily referred by the appropriate government i.e. the Central Government. This having not been done the reference was bad and therefore the subsequent award also becomes bad in law. The award dated 22.1.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is set aside - writ petition allowed .

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners were an industry.
2. Whether there existed a relationship of an employee and an employer between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners.
3. Whether the State Government was the competent authority to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Whether the petitioners were an industry:
The petitioners contended that they were not an industry, citing a judgment from the High Court of Delhi which stated that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was not an industry. The respondent, however, argued that the Institute was indeed an industry and that disputes involving it should be referred under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court did not provide a specific finding on this issue, as it determined that the reference itself was erroneous.

II. Whether there existed a relationship of an employee and an employer between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioners:
The petitioners argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and respondent no. 3, asserting that the respondent was employed by an external agency, Ms. Star Security Agency. The respondent countered that the Institute was his employer. The Court did not make a specific finding on this issue due to the determination that the reference was invalid.

III. Whether the State Government was the competent authority to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal:
The petitioners argued that the State Government was not authorized to refer the matter to the Labour Tribunal, as they were an autonomous body established by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, a central enactment. According to Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate government should have been the Central Government. The Court agreed with this argument, stating that the petitioners were a body controlled by the Central Government, and thus, any dispute should have been referred by the Central Government. The reference made by the State Government was deemed erroneous, rendering the subsequent award invalid.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the reference made by the State Government was erroneous, and therefore, the award dated 22.1.2010 was set aside. The writ petition was allowed, but the respondent no. 3 was given the liberty to raise an industrial dispute by obtaining a reference from the appropriate government (Central Government) within two months. If such a reference is made, the dispute should be settled within the next six months.