C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Angrej Singh .....Petitioner Versus P.O. Labour Court, Gurdaspur & others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. 2. C.W.P. No.5043 of 2000 Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus P.O. Labour Court, Bathinda & others ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 is against an award rejecting the relief sought by the workman that he had been illegally terminated on the ground that Soil Conservation Office in which the workman was working, although was established under the Agriculture Department of the Punjab State, was not an "industry". In C.W.P. No.5043 of 2000, a reference sought by the workman was rejected at C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -2- the threshold without undertaking any further enquiry that Agriculture Department would not come within the ambit of the definition 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The challenge is by another workman who, as petitioner in C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 contends that it is an "industry". The officer who had been examined on the side of the State had given evidence to the effect that the Department supplies medicines, fertilizer and agricultural implements to the farmers without any profit and in certain cases pesticides are supplied to the farmers with subsidy varying from 50% to 75%. The evidence was also that the Department does not carry out any research on diseases in the agriculture crops but renders only advice as to how to get rid of such diseases, without any remuneration. It was also in evidence that the Department of Agriculture issued licence to the shop keepers for the sale of pesticides/fertilizers for which licence fee was charged. Relying on the decision of this Hon'ble Court in State of Punjab Vs. Sukhdev Singh decided in C.W.P. No.8878 of 1993 on 18.11.1993, it held that Agriculture Department was not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Surprisingly, in C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999, there was not even a plea or evidence that the Agriculture Department was not an industry and the Labour Court proceeded to give a finding against the workman even in the absence of a specific issue to that effect. In C.W.P. No.5040 of 2000, there had been such an issue and by a reference to the judgment of this Court referred to above, it was held to be an "industry". The test for consideration whether a particular C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -3- organization, unit or department is an industry shall be by examining whether there is a systematic activity which is carried on. It is irrelevant that there is no commercial motive for the same. The distribution of medicines, fertilizers, agricultural implements and pesticides which the Agriculture Department of the Government engages in for improving productivity in the agriculture sector and for fostering the needs of the agriculturists shall be seen as an activity that shall answer the definition made under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(j) defines industry to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers or includes any calling service implement incorporation or industrial occupation avocation of workman. An expansive meaning to the definition of industry was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others 1978 LIC 467. It is too late in the day to contend that the Agriculture Department that engages itself in distribution of seeds and pesticides, among other activities, could be denied the status of an industry and defeat the right of persons, who were working in their capacity as workmen, to secure redress through the mechanism provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. In C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999, the Labour Court has found that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service but still did not give any relief by the fact that the Presiding Officer held that the Department where he was working was not an industry. In the other case namely C.W.P. No.5043 of 2000, the reference itself had been rejected without undertaking any enquiry. In view of C.W.P. No.11040 of 1999 -4- present finding that the respondent-management is to be treated as an industry under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respective orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and matter is remitted to the Labour Court for consideration of the respective cases of the workmen on merits after appropriate evidence that the parties may desire to let in and give adjudication as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 14.09.2009. 4. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2009 Pankaj*