GARRISON ENGINEER (UTILITY) BHATINDA versus SHRI NARINDER SINGH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 21-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GARRISON ENGINEER (UTILITY) BHA TINDA 
v. 
SHRI NARINDER SINGH 
MAY 21, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Reference seeking regularisation of 
C service-Maintainability of-Employer's case that the Act not applicable to 
· it since it cannot be treated as an industry-Held: Courts below failed to 
. '-analyse factual position and also the issue rega~ding maintainability of 
Reference-Thus, orders of courts below set aside and matter remitted back 
to the labour court. 
D 
Respondent was engaged as daily wager with the appellant-Defence 
Department. Services of the respondent no.1 were terminated. He filed 
reference and claimed regularization since he had rendered services for more 
than 240 days and, thus the termination was bad in law for non-compliance of 
s. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant contended that the 
E reference was not maintainable since the Defence Department was not an 
industry. Labour Court held the termination not sustainable. Appellant 
challenged award. High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From a perusal of the orders of the Labour Court and the 
High Court, it is noticed that the factual position has not been analysed in 
detail and abrupt conclusion has been arrived at Additionally, the legal issue 
regarding maintainability of the reference was not considered. Right from 
the beginning of the proceedings before the Labour Court and in the High 
G Court, appellant had takeri specific plea that the Act was not applicable to it 
and it was not an industry. Unfortunately, neither the Labour Court nor the 
High Court dealt with this issue. The orders of the Labour Court and the 
High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court to 
decide the objection raised by the appellant about the maintainability of the 
H 
744 
-\-.. 
GARRISON ENGINEER(UTILITY)BHA TINDA v. SHRI NARINDER SINGH[PASA Y AT, J.) 745 
proceedings under the Act, founded on the claim that it is not an industry. 
A 
_..r-
(Paras 7 and 81 1746-C,D,El 
\ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6144 of2005. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8005 of 2005. 
B 
R. Mohan, ASG., Asha G. Nair, R.C. Kathia and Anil Katiyar for the 
Appellant. 
P.N. Puri and Dhiraj for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning correctness of 
c 
the award dated 25.8.2003 made by the Presiding Officer Central Government D 
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 
the 'Labour Court'). 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
3. Respondent was engaged as Mazadoor on daily wages basis during E 
various periods from 1.1.1985 to 15.1.1987. He was engaged as per the 
requirement of the department on the basis of specific sanction of muster roll 
vacancies from time to time. However, the aforesaid sanction did not exceed 
25 days in one stretch of period under any circumstances and the period of 
Sundays ·and holidays were also included in the above period. 
As the F 
services of the respondent no. I were no longer required, his engagement was 
)-. 
tenninated on 16.1.1987. After about five years respondent no.I sought for 
a reference and claimed that his services were to be regularized. He claimed 
that he has worked for more than 240 days and, therefore, the termination of 
service without following the procedures of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
(in short 'the Act') was bad in law. The appellant filed reply to the claim G 
petition. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant is a part of the Defence 
Department and is not an industry and, therefore, the reference was not 
maintainable. Labour Court did not specifically deal with this aspect and 
holding that the respondent had rendered services for 240 days, his tennination 
was not sustainable. The award was challenged before the High Court. Apart H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A from the other controversies a specific plea was raised that the appellant is 
not an industry and, therefore, the Act has no application. 
B 
4. The High Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.