Judgment:
K. Kannan, J.
1. The twin writ petitions challenge the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman and 40% back wages with continuity of service at the instance of the management in respect of two different workmen and are being disposed of together.
2. The workmen's contention was that they had been appointed as Sweepers on temporary basis in the Manekshaw Auditorium that was run by the HQ, Western Command, Chandimandir and their services were terminated due to alleged non-availability of funds on 6.4.1995. The contention on behalf of the management was that the Auditorium was maintained by Army as a place for recreation for Army personnel and it had no commercial activity to be attracted to the definition of 'industry'. The contention was, therefore, that there was no jurisdiction for the Labour Court to determine the case. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-management refers to the terms and conditions of employment and points out to the fact that all that was required was to serve 30 days notice for which no reasons were required to be assigned and the termination had been effected only after giving such notice. The workmen are not entitled to complaint about the termination as being opposed to law.
3. The Labour Court found that management was carrying on a systematic activity in arranging picture shows, drama, lecture etc. for entertainment of the Army personnel and the mere tact it was controlled by the Army Authorities would not take out the activity from the definition of 'industry'. The Court also reasoned that absence of any profit motive would be no ground to declare that the management was not an industry. Further referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramchandra Vithuji Kothare v. The Industrial Court Nagpur and Anr. 1985 L.I.C. 1786 it held that any condition of service that had been privately entered into between parties cannot operate to over-ride the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the benefit which the Act provides to persons under Section 25-F. The award came to be, therefore, passed providing for reinstatement as well as back wages.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not able to advance the case any better in the matter of reasoning than how it was projected before the Labour Court. The definition of industry is expansive enough to accommodate any form of systematic activity and it will be immaterial that it is run by the Army. In another decision of the Bombay High Court in Rajendra Singh Institute No. 1 Pune v. Maharashtra Labour Union 2003 C.L.R. 725, the issue was whether a workman employed in an Army Mess could claim to be a workman and raise an industrial dispute. The Bombay High Court referred to the decision in The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. etc. etc. 1978 III L.L.J. 73 and held that any form of activity that was systematic in character including organization run by Government would qualify for the definition of industry. If an Army Mess could be an industry, a recreation centre run by the Army would require no different treatment.
5. Admittedly, the termination had been made without issuing notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was correct in stating that any terms and conditions of employment cannot over-ride the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and whittle the benefit that the Act grants to a workman. The mere offer of a month's salary as provided in the terms and conditions cannot substitute what the law entitles to a workman to obtain under Section 25-F. There has been a non-compliance of the statutory mandate of Section 25-F and for the illegal termination that was effected, the remedy by reinstatement will not be appropriate, having regard to the nature of engagement. '
In my view, a compensation of Rs. 1 lac each for the number of years of service that the workmen had put in and the length of time that the litigation had taken, would be appropriate remedy and meet the interest of justice. The amount of Rs. 1 lac to each of the workman shall be paid within 8 weeks from the date of the award, failing which the respective sums shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% per annum.
6. The awards of the Labour Court are modified and the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.