LexBOMBAY CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, PRABHADEVI TELEPHONE EXCHANGE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- BOMBAY CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, PRABHADEVI TELEPHONE EXCHANGE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JULY 9, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Labour Law : A B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 10(1) and 2(s)-Workmen C holding civil posts in a Corporation-Status of-Held, are not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act-Hence, are not entitled to the remedy of reference under Section 10( 1) of the ID Act. Se1vice Law : Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 136-Administrative T1ibunals Act, 1985--Persons employed in depwtmental canteens of Telephone Nigam Ltd.-Temzination of se1vice--Proper f01um for, to challenge the tennina- tion-Proper f 01um for them is under Art. 226 of the Constitution or under D Section 19 of the A. T. Act. E Tem1ination of se1vice--Inference by tribunals and cowts--Case law reviewed. The Petitioner, representing, live employees whose services were ter- minated, had sought reference under S. 10(1) of the ID Act to the Tribunal. F The petitioners were working in the canteen run by the Telephone Nigam Ltd. They were claiming wages as per the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and the services were terminated without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation under S. 25-F of the ID Act. The petitioners sought reinstatement into service with full back wages and with G continuity of service. The respondents contended before the Tribunal that the dismissed workmen holding civil post, by necessary implication, were excluded as workmen under S. 2(s) of the ID Act. The Tribunal held that the Telephone Nigam Ltd. was not an 'industry' and therefore, had no jurisdic- tion to adjudicate the dispute. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, the Petitioners tiled SLP before this Court. H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Even though the activities of the corporation partake the character of a private enterprise, since the workmen engage themselves in rendering services, it is not an industry. If there exists no statutory rules binding standing orders, necessarily, the reference under Section 10(1) of B the I.D. Act would be valid and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to go into the matter or the employee may avail of the judicial review or common law review. [20-E-F] 2. The employees working in the statutory canteen hi view of the C admission made in the counter affidavit that they are holding civil posts and are being paid monthly salary and are employees, the necessary conclusion would be that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act. On the other hand, the remedy to approach the constitutional court under Article 226 is available. Equally, the remedy under Section 19 of the Administrative D Tribunal Act is available. But, generally, the practice that has grown is to direct the citizen to avail the right under Article 136 of the Constitution by special leave. [20-F-H; 21-A] Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam, [1996] 8 SCC 489, E affirmed. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board v. R. Rajappa, [1978] 3 SCR 207, explained. State of Bombay & Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., [1960] F 2 SCR 866; C01poration of the City of Nagpur v. Its Employees, [1960] 2 SCR 942; Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v., The State of Bihar & Ors., [1969] 3 SCR 995; Praga Tools Corporation v. CA. !manual, [1969] 3 SCR 773; Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghubanshi & Anr., [1975] 3 SCR 619; Ajay Rasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. etc., [1981] 2 SCR 79; R.D. Shetty v. llltemational Airp01t Authority of India, G [1979] 1 SCR 1042; U.P. Warehousing Coporation v. Vajay Narain Vajpayee, [1980] 3 SCC 459; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal & Ors., [1967] 3 SCR 377; D. T.C. v. D. T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors., (1991] Supp. (1) SCC 600; Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, NEF, [1964] 5 SCC 683; Central Inland Water Transport C01pn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ga1!$Uly, H [1986] 3 SCR 156; Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour - .,. BOMBAY CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, PRABHADEVI v. U.0.1. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.J 3 Union & Ors., [1996] 9 SCALE 70; Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. A Shanna, (C.A. No. 2663/97; Chief Conservator of Forests & Anr. v. Jagannath Murthi Kandhare, [1996] 2 SCC 293, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.