Case: University Of Delhi &amp; Anr Vs. Ram Nath

1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of two petitions filed against the University of Delhi and Principal Miranda House University College for Women, appellants 1  and 2, by two of their employees Ram Nath and Asgar Masih, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). Appellant No.2 which is the University College for women is run by appellant No.1, and so, in substance, the claim made by the two employees was mainly against appellant No.1. Ram Naths case was that he had been employed as driver by appellant No.2 in Oct. 1, 1949 and was served with a notice on the 1st May 1961 that since his services were no longer required, he would be discharged from his employment on payment of one months salary in lieu of notice. Asgar Masih made substantially similar allegations. He had been employed in the first instance, by appellant No.1 as driver but was then transferred to appellant No. 2 on the 1st October 1949. His services were similarly terminated by notice on the 1st May 1961 on payment of one months salary in advance in lien of notice. It is common ground that appellant No.1 found that running the buses for the convenience of the girl students attending the college run by appellant No. 2 resulted in loss, and so, it was decided to discontinue that amenity. Inevitably, the services of the two drivers had to be retrenched, and so, there is no dispute that the retrenchment is genuine and there is no element of mala fides or unfair labour practice involved in it. It is also common ground that if the employees are workmen within the meaning of the Act, and the work carried on by the appellants is an industry under S.2(j)/S 25F has not been complied with and retrenchment amount payable under it has not been paid to the respondents. The petitions made by the respondents were resisted by appellant No.1 on the preliminary ground that appellant No.1 was not an employer under S.2(g), that the work carried on by it was not an industry under S.2(j), and so, the applications made under S.33C(2) were incompetent. The Tribunal has rejected this preliminary objections and having considered the merits, has passed an order in favour of the respondents directing the appellants to pay Rs.1050/- to each one of the respondents as retrenchment compensation. It is the validity of this award that is challenged before us by the appellants, and the only ground on which the challenge is made is that the work carried on by appellant No.1 is not an industry under S.2(j).

Reasoning: 17. Reading the judgment as a whole, there can be no doubt that the question as to whether education work carried on by educational institutions like the University of Delhi which have been formed primarily and solely for the purpose of imparting education amount to an industry within the meaning S.2(14), was not argued before the Court and was not really raised in that form. The main attack against the award proceeded on the basis that what the Corporation was doing through its several departments was work which could be regarded as regal or governmental, and as such, was outside the purview of the Act, and that argument was rejected. The other point which is also relevant is that one of the tests laid down by this Court was that if a department was carrying on predominantly industrial activities, the fact that some of its activities may not be industrial did not matter. Applying the same test to the Corporation as a whole, the question was examined and the inclusion of the education department in the award was upheld. It would: thus be dear that if the test of the character of the predominant activity of the institution which was applied to the Corporation is applied to the University of Delhi, the answer would be plainly against the respondents. The predominant activity of the University of Delhi is outside the Act, because teaching and teachers connected with it do not come within its purview, and so, the minor and incidental activity carried on by the subordinate staff which may fall within the purview of the Act cannot alter the predominant character of the institution.18. It would be recalled that in the case of the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, (1960) 2 SCR 866  : (AIR 1960 SC 610  ) the question about educational institutions was deliberately and expressly left open and if the said question was intended to be decided in the case of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, (1960) 2 SCR 942: (AIR 1960 SC 675  ) naturally more specific arguments would have been urged and the problem would have been examined in all its aspects. Incidentally, we may add that the Bench that left the question open in the case of Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960) 2 SCR 866  : (AIR 1960 SC 610  ) was the same Bench which heard the case of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur? (1960) 2 SCR 942: (AIR 1960 SC 675  ) and the two matters were argued soon after each other though the judgment in the first case was delivered on the 29th January1960 and that in the latter case on the l0th February 1960. We are making these observations with a view to emphasise the fact that the question which has been raised for our decision in the present appeals was not raised nor argued in case of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur (1960) 2 SCR 942: (AIR 1960 SC 675  ) and cannot, therefore, be said to have been decided even incidentally only by reason of the fact that amongst the departments which were held to have been properly included in the award was the education department of the Corporation. If we had been satisfied that the said Judgment had decided this point we would either have followed the said decision, or would have referred the question to a larger Bench.