- (1.) VIDE their order dated October 24, 1978, the Government of Punjab referred the dispute raised, by the Respondent-workman to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'act' ). The Respondent-workman in his demand notice dated February 27, 1978 had objected to his illegal termination on November 13, 1974. It was submitted by him that before his termination, he was employed by the Management as Plumber on a monthly salary of Rs. 360/ -. The claim of the workman was resisted on various grounds including the ground that as the management was not an 'industry' within the meaning of the Act, the reference was mis-conceived. It was further submitted that the demand notice of the claimant had earlier been rejected by the Labour Court in Reference No. 706 of 1975. On merits it was alleged that the workman was guilty of serious misconduct which he had confessed with the result that his services were terminated.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Labour Court : "1. Whether the Respondent is not an industry under Industrial Disputes Act ?. 2. Whether this reference is incompetent as alleged in Para No. 2 of preliminary objections of written Statement ?. 3. Whether claimant was not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act ? 4. Whether reference is belated ? If so, its effect ? 5. Whether termination is justified and in order ? 6. Whether workman resigned from service and he was guilty of misconduct ?. 7. Relief ?. "
(3.) AFTER referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960-I-LLJ-251) and Safdarjang Hospital's case, (1970-II-LLJ-266) and after relying upon the judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978i-LLJ-349), the Labour Court held that as the Management failed to produce the evidence to the effect that it was a charitable institution which was being run purely on donations, it was deemed to be an 'industry'. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Labour Court held that : ". . . The factual position has not been brought on the file to show for as to what reasons the previous/reference was rejected. The onus was upon the respondent to establish that the reference was decided on merits. There is no force in the objection raised". Similarly, Issue No. 3 was also decided against the Management. Issue No. 4 was also decided against the Management on the ground that even on the basis of the pleadings of the Management, the workman was shown to have raised the industrial dispute at the earliest in the year 1975. While deciding Isuue No. 5, the Labour Court referred to the evidence led in the case and concluded that the termination of the workman was not justified. Alleged letter of resignation of the workman was also held to be not proved. The Labour Court, however, directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and backwages only to the extent of 35 per cent.;