Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Savitribai Phule Pune University and another (petitioners) challenging an order of the Labour Court at Pune. The respondent, Alok Shivaji Salve, was appointed as an Assistant Librarian by the university. He applied for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming he was a workman who had completed 240 days of work each year and was improperly terminated. The Appropriate Government made a reference (Reference (I.D.A.) No.346 of 2015). The university raised a preliminary objection that the respondent was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) and that the university was not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act. The Labour Court framed an issue of maintainability and, after considering pleadings and evidence, held that the respondent was a workman and the university was an industry. The university challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court examined the Labour Court's findings, noting that the respondent was appointed on a monthly salary, the university maintained his attendance sheet, issued him an identity card identifying him as 'staff', and his duties included noting new stock, classifying books, arranging them, issuing books to students, and maintaining records. The High Court held that these duties constituted manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work, bringing the respondent within the definition of 'workman'. Regarding the university being an industry, the High Court followed the landmark decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, which held that educational institutions are industries under Section 2(j). The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the Labour Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman - Definition under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Assistant Librarian performing manual, clerical, and supervisory duties held to be a workman - Labour Court's finding based on evidence of attendance, identity card, and nature of duties upheld (Paras 2-4).
B) Industrial Law - Industry - Definition under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - University held to be an industry following the law in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa - Educational institution engaged in systematic activity for production and distribution of services falls within definition (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent (Assistant Librarian) is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the petitioner (Savitribai Phule Pune University) is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) and the petitioner is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Definition of industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- Preliminary issue of jurisdiction
- Educational institution as industry
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (12) 33
Writ Petition No. 4485 of 2019
Senior Counsel Mr. Ram Apte i/by Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, for the Petitioners; Mr. Jaydeep Deo a/w Mr. Sanjay K. Gunjkar, for the Respondent
Savitribai Phule Pune University Through the Registrar and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Labour Court on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction in an industrial reference.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (university) sought to quash the Labour Court's order holding that the respondent is a workman and the university is an industry.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Labour Court's finding on the preliminary issue that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) and the university is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court at Pune, in Reference (I.D.A.) No.346 of 2015, held that the respondent is a workman and the petitioner is an industry.
Issues
Whether the respondent is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the petitioner (university) is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent was not a workman and that the university was not an industry.
The respondent contended that he was a workman performing manual and clerical duties and that the university is an industry.
Ratio Decidendi
An Assistant Librarian performing duties such as noting stock, classifying books, issuing books, and maintaining records is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A university is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) following the principle in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.
Judgment Excerpts
The Labour Court observed that the second party was appointed on a monthly salary; the first party used to maintain his attendance sheet; it had given him an identity card identifying him as ‘staff’ of the first party; and that having regard to the nature of his work, which was to note new stock of books into a register maintained for the purpose, to classify the books and arrange them systematically, to give books to students as per their demands and take back the same from them, to note inward and outward number of books, constituted manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and as such, the second party fell within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
So far as the character of the first party is concerned, the Court went by the law stated in the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.
Procedural History
The respondent applied for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appropriate Government made a reference (Reference (I.D.A.) No.346 of 2015) to the Labour Court at Pune. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction. The Labour Court framed an issue and, after hearing evidence, held that the respondent is a workman and the petitioner is an industry. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 4485 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s), Section 2(j), Section 10
