CWP NO. 4048 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4048 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Central Scientific Instruments Organization ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1 and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sunder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 23.02.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, to the limited extent wherein the Labour Court had, while deciding the reference, proceeded to hold that the petitioner- Organization is an industry. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has gone beyond the reference in deciding this issue. He contends that the finding should not have been given by the Labour Court in the light of the CWP NO. 4048 of 2010 2 fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the matter to a Larger Bench for reviewing the definition of industry as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548. He contends that during the pendency of the matter before the Larger Bench, the Labour Court should not have decided the reference and held the petitioner an industry. He, on this basis, contends that the Award to the extent of holding the petitioner as an industry, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the issue whether the petitioner-Organization was an industry or not does not form the part of the reference, cannot be said to be correct. The Labour Court is entitled to decide and has to decide the issue raised before it by the parties. The question with regard to the petitioner being an industry or not was raised by the petitioner itself before the Labour Court stating therein that as the petitioner was not an industry, the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to it. The effect thereof was that the reference could not have been made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The issue, which has been raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court, was ancillary and related to the question involved before the Court wherein the reference was made to the extent that “Whether the action of the Director Central Scientific Instrument Organization Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Surinder Pal is legal and justified? If not, to what releif the workman is entitled to and from which date?” The Labour Court has, therefore, rightly dealt with the matter and has given a finding. CWP NO. 4048 of 2010 3 The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reference should not have been decided by the Labour Court during the pendency of the matter with regard to the review of definition of industry to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others (supra), is also misplaced. The case cannot be left pending merely on a reference, which has been made to a Larger Bench and is pending. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others (supra) has not been stayed and, therefore, is in operation as of now. It is only that the judgment has been doubted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been referred to a Larger Bench. During the pendency of the reference, it does not mean that the judgment, which is doubted, is kept under suspension or does not have any operation or applicability. The observation of the Labour Court on this issue is fully justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this court. However, in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court comes to a conclusion that the definition of industry as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others (supra) in not in accordance with law and the petitioner can get benefit thereof, it would be open to the petitioner to raise such objection before the appropriate Court at the appropriate time. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 09, 2010 pj