Judgment:
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, against the Judgment dated 31st May, 1978 by a learned single Judge discharging the Rule. The Indian Statistical Institute prayed to recall, rescind and/or cancel the two notices dated 2nd March, 1971 and 26th April, 1975 issued by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in P.W.A. Case No. 20 of 1971. The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that an ex-employee is entitled to maintain or make a claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the claim made by Jyotish Chandra Bhunia, the respondent No. 3 and others before the Authority in P.W.A. Case No. 20 of 1971 was lawful, maintainable and entertainable.
2. Mr. Kundu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Indian Statistical Institute, made comprehensive submissions and tried to emphasis that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not applicable so far as the I.S.I. is concerned. In this connection he drew the attention of the Court to Section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act as well as Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the said Act. From the sections referred to hereinbefore it appears that this Act is applicable to persons employed in any factory or an industrial or other establishment including tramway service or transport service engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward; Air transport service; dock, wharf or jetty; inland vessel, mechanically propelled; mine, quarry or oil-field; plantation; workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced or manufactured etc and any establishment in which any work relating the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, navigation, irrigation, generation, distribution of electricity etc. are carried on. The attention of the Court was drawn by Mr. Kundu to the last proviso of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act which provides that any application may be admitted after the said period of 12 months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In this matter the Authority under the said Act on 26th April, 1975 held that the explanation given by the applicant for the delay in filing this claim was justified and the delay was condoned. According to the learned Advocate' for the petitioner the applicants were in the service of the I.S.I. from 1960 to 1966 and thereafter the I.S.I. made arrangement to their employment in the Garden Reach Workshop Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking of the Union Government, and they accepted the said employment. After the applicants had joined the Garden Reach Workshop Ltd., there was no relationship of employer and employee between the applicants and the writ petitioner since 22nd November, 1966.
3. It appears that there was a compromise between the workmen of the I.S.I. Workers' Organisation and the management of the I.S.I. where some agreement was arrived at and on the basis of such compromise and in terms of joint petition of settlement a 'no dispute' award was made by the learned 4th Industrial Tribunal on 29th June, 1973. So far as the delay is concerned, the Authority has already condoned the delay on 26th April, 1975 and it will not be proper on our part to take away the benefit of this condonation from the workmen. The Supreme Court in so many decisions has condoned long delays of decades and we do not find why Jyotish Chandra Bhunia and 54 others should be deprived of from the benefit which has already accrued in their favour by the decision of the Authority. The case must be contested on merits and not on technicalities to deprive a poor section of the Society from some benefit if they are so entitled to.
4. As we have said earlier that Mr. Kundu has forcefully presented the clients' case that I.S.I. is not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. He has in this connection very much relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and Ors., reported in : (1984)ILLJ67SC . He particularly referred to paragraph 2 of the said Judgment wherein Their Lordships observed as under :-
'The Institute carries on an integrated programme of training, teaching and research in statistics and application of statistical techniques in other disciplines. The Institute has been declared as an 'Institution of National Importance' under the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act the Institute has been empowered to grant such degrees and diplomas in statistics as may be determined by the Institute from time to time.'
5. The learned Advocate also placed before the Court a Performance Budget, 1992-93 which contains as Introduction one of the paragraphs as under:-
'The Indian Statistical Institute is a non-profit distributing learned society of national importance. It is an autonomous body in receipt of substantial amounts from the Department of Statistics by way of grant-in-aid to meet its expenditure. The Institute is engaged in an integrated programme of research training and practical application of statistics in different disciplines through a large number of projects. The institute is vested with powers to hold examinations and grant degrees and diplomas in statistics.'
6. But no where it appears that the Institute is not involved in any kind of activities which are not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. The aforesaid case of the Supreme Court and the quotation of the Performance Budget also make it clear that those relate to the objects and the ultimate achievement of the Institute, and not the activities in general or in detail that the Institute are performing. The appellant in the writ petition admitted that the I.S.I. employed about 2,000 workers under various departments and/or its works. This statement is made in the opening paragraph of the writ petition. In another place the word 'helpers' has also been used in the Paper Book. There was some dispute between the I.S.I. and its 'workers' and/or 'helpers' cannot be denied and at the same time there was a compromise between I.S.I. Management and the I.S.I. Workers Organisation on 9th November, 1973. It is also on record that the matter went as industrial dispute before the learned Judge of the 4th Industrial Tribunal and 'no dispute' award on the basis of the settlement between the parties was awarded on 29th June, 1973.
7. Mr. Kundu very frankly submitted that the point of law relating to the non-applicability of the Payment of Wages Act to the Institute was not taken before the trial Court and as it is a point of law, it is being agitated before the trial Court. The Appeal Bench allowed Mr. Kundu to make submission on the point.
8. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal, strongly contested the point of Mr. Kundu that the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to the I.S.I. He submitted that the works being carried out at the Institute is of such nature that the Payment of Wages Act is applicable with its full force. He submitted that some materials are being manufactured there on scientific basis and if workers work there and it cannot be said to be not an industry. In this connection he pointed out a decision of the Supreme Court reported in : (1986)ILLJ136SC (Osmania University v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Andhra Pradesh) wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the Department of Publications and Press of the Osmania University is a factory and the Factories Act of 1948 is applicable. Here, we are not dealing with the Factories Act for the present but with the Payment of Wages Act. But we can adduce in this case the principle laid down in the case of Osmania University.
9. Mr. Kundu has emphasised before the Court the Application Form being Form 'B' under Sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act and he very strongly submitted that this is applicable only in case of 'persons employed'. After the words 'persons employed' the word 'railway' is concerned, it is a mere form and should be corrected accordingly as the case might be whether it is of railway or industrial establishment or anything else. But we have already said in this connection that the condonation of delay was done by the authority concerned and we do not want to reverse that decision.
10. We are of the opinion that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is applicable to the appellant, the Indian Statistical Institute.
11. We must appreciate the way Mr. Kundu has placed the case of his client with ellucid argument but we are sorry at the same time that we cannot agree with him. In the circumstances the Appeal fails and the Judgment of the learned single Judge is hereby affirmed. There will be no order as to costs.
12. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.
S.P. Rajkhowa, J.
13. I agree.