- (1.) This appeal is arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the award passed by the Labour Court. The appeal was earlier dismissed by this Court, however, in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the matter has been remitted back to this Court to decide the issue as to whether Appellant is an industry. The matter was accordingly heard on the aforesaid issue. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of 'industry' as provided under Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947'). Learned Single Judge so as the Labour Court failed to decide the aforesaid issue after taking into consideration the activities of the Appellant-Council. This is more so when the Appellant is fully funded by the Government of India with non-profit making objects, thus its activities cannot be considered to be commercial in nature. The Appellant Council is rather doing sovereign functions, hence, for that reason also, it does not fall within the meaning of 'industry' as provided under the Act of 1947. To support the contentions, reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Physical Research Laboratory v. K.C. Sharma, 1997 76 FLR 212, has been made to show that therein Physical Research Laboratory was not held to be an industry in absence of commercial industrial activities. Therein, Physical Research Laboratory, being an institution under the Government of India's Department of Space found to be engaged in research of space science and Knowledge acquired therein was to be used by the Government of India alone. The research work carried out by the said organization was not connected with production, supply and distribution of the materials, goods or services. The research work was not for the benefit or use of others.
(2.) According to learned Counsel for Appellant, nature of work carried out by the Appellant is similar, thus this case is covered by the judgment aforesaid. Reference of another judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v. J.M. Kondhare, 1996 72 FLR 840, has been given. Therein, the work undertaken by the department was not held to sovereign functions. Aforesaid judgment does not render assistance to the Appellant rather it goes against them. Third judgment cited by learned Counsel for Appellant is in the case of Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Vaikam and Ors. v. Theyyam Joseph, 1996 72 FLR 690. Therein Postal and Telecommunication Department was not held to be an industry. With the support of judgments referred to above, prayer of the Appellant is to set aside the award so as the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that Appellant does not fall within the definition of 'industry'.
(3.) Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that while the written statement was filed before the Labour Court, Appellant did not raise issue as has been argued herein. In absence of any contention, no evidence was led to substantiate that Appellant does not fall within the definition of 'industry,. This is for the first time that such an argument has been raised though now it has to be decided by this Court in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal so preferred by the Appellant whereby the matter has been remitted back to this Court. The fact, however, remains that in absence of any evidence before the Labour Court, can the issue be decided on the contention now made before this Court? Without prejudice to the above objection, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the issue as to whether Research Institution falls within the definition of 'industry' or not was authoritatively decided in the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors., 1978 36 FLR 266 Therein earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Ahmedabad Textile Industries Research Associations case was approved reversing the conflicting judgment in the case of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi, 1961 AIR(SC) 484. The present matter is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment.;