RAM BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ram Bahadur was engaged as a driver in the office of the Secretary -cum -Chief Engineer, Housing Board, Himachal Pradesh, on December 6, 1983. His services were dispensed with by an oral order with effect from September 23, 1984. When he failed to get relief from his employer, Ram Bahadur came to this Court for redress by instituting the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on October 11, 1984. The three respondents in the petition are the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Secretary -cum -Chief Engineer of the f -IP Housing Board and the Executive Engineer P. and P. of the H.P Housing Board. A reply has been filed in the petition on behalf of the second and third respondents.

(2.) From the affidavits exchanged between the parties it appears that there is no dispute between them about the fact that petitioner Ram Bahadur was engaged as a driver on daily wages with effect from December 6, 1983, and continued to function almost without a break till September 23, 1984 when his services were dispensed with orally. The petitioner claims that the termination of his services amounted . to "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brief, "the Act") and that, inasmuch as he had put in continuous service for not less than two hundred and forty days during the period of one year counted backwards from the date of termination of his service, he was entitled to the protection available to a "workman" as defined in section 2 (s) of the Act. Since, there was breach of the mandatory conditions precedent envisaged by section 25 -F in his case, the order of termination was void and inoperative. It is not seriously disputed on behalf of the respondent that for purposes of a case like the present, the Housing Board will be an "industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j). On the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Boards A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548, as succinctly brought out by the Supreme Court in a later judgment in Des Raj etc v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1968 SC 1182, it must be held that the HP Housing Board is an "industry". The Court, speaking through Ranganath Misra, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) summarised the predominant nature test laid down in the Bangalore Water Supply case thus: "(a) Where a complex of activities some of which quality for exemption, others not, involves employees on the total under taking, some of whom are not workmen .........or some of whom are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur, AIR 1960 SC 675, will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be industry although those who are not workmen by definition may not benefit by the status. (b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. (c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within section 2(j). (d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby". 3 After noticing the facts in the ease of Des Raj the Supreme Court held that the Department of Irrigation of the State of Punjab, where Des Raj was working, was covered by the definition of "industry" in section 2 (j).

(4.) The Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972, under which the H.P. Housing Board is established is: "an Act to provide for measures to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation". Chapter II relates to the establishment and constitution of Board including the appointment and conditions of service of its officers and servants. It also contains various provisions relating to the conduct of the business of the Board. Chapter III deals with the powers and duties of the Board to undertake housing schemes and their execution. It also enumerates some other duties of the Board. A look at section 25, occurring in this Chapter, would show that the Board is empowered to frame and execute housing schemes and for that purpose take such steps as are necessary for undertaking work in any area to which the Act applies and to incur expenditure therefor. Suffice it to say that the Housing Board is primarily constituted for undertaking schemes for the welfare of the community by providing housing accommodation.