* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR + WRIT PETITION No.17979 of 2001 % Dated: 25.11.2010 Kannam Venkati ……………….Petitioner Vs. The District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Karimnagar And three others. ………….Respondents. ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.V.Jagadishwar Reddy ^Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Labour and Sri K.Raghunadha <Gist: >Head Note: ? Citations: 1) AIR 1960 SC 675 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18051 OF 2001 DT.26.11.2010 BETWEEN: Kannam Venkati ……………….Petitioner Vs. The District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Karimnagar And three others. ………….Respondents. O R D E R: The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavari Khani, in I.D.No.113 of 1996, dated 02.08.2000. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inter alia, contending that he worked as Sweeper in Manakundur Village Grampanchayat, Manakonduru Mandal since 18.03.1983 to 08.11.1994 and was paid a monthly salary of Rs.600/- per month. It is also his case that without issuing any notice, his services have been terminated from 08.11.1994. Then he approached the first respondent District Panchayat Officer, but invain. It is also his case that though subsequently the first respondent directed the second respondent to take the petitioner into service through letter No.A-3/1008/96- Panchayat, dated 22.05.1996, the petitioner was not taken into service. The respondent filed a counter and contended that the petitioner himself absented to duty from 09.01.1996 to 10.09.1996 without prior intimation and that when the petitioner himself approached the third respondent with a written request on 10.09.1996, the third respondent has decided to take him into service and that the third respondent never neglected or refused to take the petitioner into service. It is also the case of the respondents that the third respondent issued a notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation for the absence from 12.01.1996 to 17.01.1996 and that the petitioner did not receive the notice and again on 27.01.1996 and on 05.02.1996 notices were issued to the petitioner, but he did not receive the said notices. It is also contended that the petitioner is working from 11.09.1996 without any allegation. It is also contended that the Gram Panchayat does not come within the definition of an industry under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court passed the impugned award holding that the Gram Panchayat is not an industry and that the view of the Labour Court is not correct. The points that arises for consideration is whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside and whether gram pancayat comes within the definition of Industry. Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “industry” to mean “any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and to include any calling service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in a case between THE CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION VS. N.H.MAJUMDAR AND OTHERS[1] in support of his contention that the Gram Panchayat also comes under the definition of an industry. In the above referred decision, the Apex Court observed as follows: “The following five characteristics are stated to be the conditions implicit in the definition: (1) the activity must concern the production or distribution of goods or services; (ii) it must be to serve others but not to oneself; (iii) it must involve co-operative effort between employer and employee, between capital and labour; (iv) it must be done as a commercial transaction; and (v) it must not be in exercise of purely governmental functions.” While discussing the point whether the Municipal Corporation comes within the definition of industry or not, the Apex Court further observed as follows: “Industry”, it would be illogical to exclude the tax department from the definition. While in the case of private individual or firms services are paid in cash or otherwise, in the case of public institutions, as the services are paid in cash or otherwise, in the case of public institutions, as the services are rendered to the public, the taxes collected from them constitute a fund for performing those services. As most of the services rendered by the municipality come under the definition of “industry”, we should hold that the employees of the tax department are also entitled to the benefits under the Act.” While discussing about the Public Works Department, the Apex Court observed as follows: “This department is in charge of construction and maintenance of public works such as roads, drains, building, markets, public latrines etc. For the convenience of the public, this department is divided into zones and every zone has its office. The outdoor staff in the P.W.D. consists of assistant engineer, overseers, sub-overseers, time keepers, mates, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths and coolies. The other staff consisting of clerks and peons, performs indoor duties. 1) This department performs both administrative and executive functions. The services rendered are such that they can equally be done by private individuals and they come under the definition of “industry”, satisfying both the positive and negative tests laid down by us in this regard. We, therefore, hold that this department is an industry.” Admittedly, Gram Panchayat also collects tax from the department and its functions includes maintaining the roads, drains, markets, street lights, water supply, etc. Considering the nature of functions that have to be rendered by the Gram Panchayat, it has to be treated as an industry in the light of the above referred judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that the Gram Panchayat is not an industry appears to be not correct. Once it is held that the Gram Panchayat is an industry, the employees in the Gram Panchayats and connected with that service, whether financial, administrative or executive, would be entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act. Coming to the facts of this case, there are some peculiar circumstances in this case. The petitioner claims that he worked from 18.03.1983 to 08.11.1994. The respondent in the counter before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court alleged that the petitioner was not attending the duties from 12.01.1996 to 17.01.1996 and in the counter it is stated that the third respondent decided to take the petitioner into service and that he is working from 11.09.1996 without any allegation. It appears that counter was filed without verifying the facts or the facts pertaining to some other case was wrongly incorporated in this counter. The petitioner’s case is that he was removed from service on 08.11.1994 without holding an enquiry and without issuing any notice. It appears that the District Panchayat Officer has also issued proceedings directing the Gram Panchayat to take the petitioner into service. Unfortunately, the relevant documents were not properly discussed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal should examine the entire material before it and ascertain the facts and give its findings basing on the evidence. Admittedly, no documents have been filed to show that any show cause notice was issued to him before terminating his services. Thus, it is clear that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had stated in his affidavit that he is on roads without any employment and could not approach the court due to lack of funds and there is no denial of such contentions of the petitioner by the respondent in his counter. In view of the above discussion, the award of the Labour Court is set aside. The writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and in the circumstances, with half of the back wages. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR J., Dt.26.11.2010 L.C.COPY tjs [1] ) AIR 1960 SC 675