S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 9.10.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court'), whereby, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') has been directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice dated 19.8.1991.
(2.) THE petitioner M/s Tirath Ram Ahuja Limited is a company engaged in construction business. It is stated that the petitioner -company at times gets contracts to construct buildings etc. all over India. At every construction site, labourers are hired directly as well as through labour contractors to complete the projects in hand. Hence all the labourers hired are the project workers. The petitioner -company was engaged in construction of two buildings namely Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) and the Buildings known as Gwal Pahari Project and Garden Estate Housing Complex (GEHC). The respondent No. 2 was hired as Blacksmith/Welder for the construction work in TERI in November 1990. After the completion of TERI, he was shifted to the site of GEHC. On the completion of this project, he was discharged on 1.8.1991. Construction work of GEHC was finally completed in 1992. The workman on his discharge, filed a demand notice on 19.8.1991. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman reiterated his claim in the statement of claim.
(3.) ON completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : - "a. Whether respondent does not fall under the definition of Industry ? If so, what effect ? b. Whether termination of petitioner's services is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled? c. Relief." After appreciating the evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days. Thereafter, it was held that the termination of the petitioner is not justified. The Labour Court has also observed that the Management has failed to produce the documentary evidence in the form of wages claim register and attendance register. It is held that no justification has been put forth by the Management for with -holding the documentary evidence. Therefore, the Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference under Section 114 of Illustration (3) of the Evidence Act, 1872 to hold that the evidence so with -held by the Management, if produced, would have gone against them and would have supported the claim of the petitioner. The Labour Court has also relied on a document produced by WW4 Om Parkash UDC from the office of the Provident Fund Department. He has placed on the record certain documents. Ex.WW4/2 is a copy of the Supplementary Annual Form 6 -A which shows that the provident fund contribution was deducted from the salary of the workman for the period from April 1990 to March 1991. This document has been read by the Labour Court with the statement of WW4, where it is stated that provident fund contribution was deducted after completion of 90 days. Considering the effect of the facts taken together, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the workman has worked for a period of more than 240 days during the calender year preceding the termination of services. The aforesaid findings of fact having been arrived at after appreciation of evidence, cannot be said to be based on no evidence. Therefore, on this ground, it cannot be said that the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. The Management had also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that it was not an Industry as defined under Section 2 -J of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the aforesaid submission in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and others, : AIR 1978 S.C. 548. It has been held by the Labour Court that the test laid down in the aforesaid case is fully satisfied, as the petitioner is carrying on the construction work in a systematic manner with the cooperation between the employer and the employees and this activity leads to fulfillment of human needs and wishes. The Labour Court has further held that where human needs attempted to be fulfilled by an employer are neither spiritual nor religious but are material things and goods, the employer definitely falls within the definition of an Industry.;