NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 5.4.04 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 2104/1995(R) whereby the said writ application has been allowed and the award dated 30.3.94 of the learned Tribunal, so far as it directs for regularization of the services of the casual workers, has been set aside.
(2.) THE appellant in whose favour the Industrial Tribunal had rendered the award is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he has quashed the said award holding that the respondent -Management of the Central Horticultural Experiment Station, Ranchi (hereinafter to be called as ˜the CHES') is not an industry and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal is vitiated on account of non -consideration of the relevant facts and valid reasons. Before coming to the moot point as to whether the respondent is an industry and for putting the impugned order to the legal test, it is necessary to state the admitted facts giving rise to the dispute in question. The CHES is one of the Regional Research Stations of the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore, which itself is one of about 50 Research Institutes of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi. It is mainly engaged in research, training, teaching and transfer of technology to the farmers through its various Research Institutes, National Research Centres, Project Directorates etc. The CHES has a research farm for that purpose where the fruits such as mango, litchi, guava, banana, pineapple, papaya, citrus, plum, pomagranate, jackfruit, bael, lemon, phyalsa etc and the vegetables such as cauliflower, cabbage, peas, beans, parwal, tomato, brinjal etc are grown and sold through the sales counter of the Research Station. The price is fixed by the Head/Director on the basis of the recommendation of the price fixation committee. For the purpose of growing the said fruits and vegetables, the workers are engaged for planting, spraying, weeding, irrigation, propagation, harvesting and sale etc. The respondent requires a large number of labourers for the said activities. The appellant -concerned workmen are among those workers who were engaged by the CHES on daily wages basis for the period from 21.3.1979 to 28.3.1984.
(3.) THE concerned workmen claimed that although they had been working since long and they were categorized as Group -D employees, they have not been regularized nor the benefit of Group -D scale was given to them. They claimed that they were entitled to be regularized as Group -D employees. The appellant further claimed that the nature of the work for which they are engaged is perennial in nature and keeping the concerned workmen engaged for decades as casual workers, is unfair labour practice and violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as ˜the I. D. Act'] .;