Dismissed

Maharishi University of Management and Technology v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Apr 2023WPL/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a labour court order. The court held that an educational institution is an 'industry' under the ID Act. It allowed preliminary objections regarding the industrial nature and workman status to be decided on merits by the labour court after recording evidence, dismissing claims of illegality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the reference expeditiously and frame issues on the objection to be decided along with merit.

Maharishi University of Management and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

AFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.(L) No. 59 of 2023

¶4

Maharishi University Of Management And Technology Through Its Registrar, Post Box No. 10, Mangla Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶5

-----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Chitranjan Namdev S/o P. R. Namdev Aged About 54 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Shiv Mandir Gali, Near Suryavanshi Dharmshala, Torwa Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Respondents Cause titile is taken from CIS system

¶10

For Petitioner : Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri R.M. Solapurkar, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

13.04.2023

¶14

The petitioner has filed present writ petition assailing the order dated 09/12/2022 passed in reference case No. 14/IDA/ReF/2021. The petitioner has raised objection with regard to maintainability of reference contending that petitioner university is an Educational Institution, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of Industry. The petitioner has also raised objection that the existence of University was cancelled in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government, as per enactment of new Act University has come in existence in the year 2018 and in view of new ordinance and statute framed as per the Act of 2018services of Employees have been terminated which does not fall within the ambit of retrenchment. Thus the reference is not maintainable. These objection raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the reference have

¶15

been directed to be decided along with merit of the case, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all these objection in the written statement.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the objection raised before the labour court and contending that learned labour court has committed illegality in not considering the objection raised by the petitioner and unnecessarily directed the petitioner to under long trial as such the impugned order is deserves to be quashed by this court.

¶17

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submission and would submit that Educational Institution is an Industry as defined in section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He would further submit that even the learned labour court has not rejected the objection but has ordered that the same shall be considered along with the written statement after framing of issue and considering the evidence to be brought on record by the parties as such there is no illegality on the part of labour court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

¶19

The issue whether Educational Institution is an “Industry” and its Employee are “Workmen” for the purpose of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been answered by a seven Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1979 in Banglore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa reported in 1978(2) SCC 213. The Hon’ble supreme Court has held at para-95 as under:-

¶20

We may deal with these contentions in a brief way, since the substantial grounds on which we reject the reasoning have already been set out elaborately. The premises relied on is that the bulk. of the employees in the university is the teaching community. Teachers are not workmen and cannot raise disputes under the Act. The subordinate staff being only a minor category of insignificant numbers, the institution must be excluded, going by the predominant character test. It is one thing to say that an institution is not an industry. It is

¶21

altogether, another thinking to say that a large number of its employees are not workmen' and cannot therefore, avail of the benefits of the. Act so the institution ceases to be an industry. The test is not the predominant number of employees entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The true test is the predominant nature of the activity. In the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesis education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the university is an industry. The error has crept in, if we may so say with great respect, in mixing up the numerical strength of the

¶22

personnel with the nature of the activity.

¶23

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in case of Rajkumar Vs. Director of Education reported in 2016 (6) SCC 541 has again held that University is Industry and held at para – 29 as under ;-

¶24

The issue whether educational institution is an ‘industry’, and its employees are ‘workmen’ for the purpose of the ID Act has been answered by a Seven-judge Bench of this Court way back in the year 1978 in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra). It was held that educational institution is an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, though not all of its employees are workmen. It was held as under:

¶25

95…“The premises relied on is that the bulk of the employees in the university is the teaching community. Teachers are not workmen and cannot raise disputes under the Act. The subordinate staff being only a minor category of insignificant numbers, the institution must be excluded, going by the predominant character test. It is one thing to say that an institution is not an industry. It is altogether another thinking to say that a large number of its employees are not 'workmen' and cannot therefore avail of the benefits of the Act so the institution ceases to be an industry. The test is not the predominant number of employees entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The true test is the predominant nature of the activity. In the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the university is an industry. The error has crept in, if we may so say with great respect, in mixing up the numerical strength of the personnel with the nature of the activity.

¶26

Secondly there are a number of other activities of the University Administration, demonstrably industrial which are severable although ancillary to the main cultural enterprise. For instance, a university may have a large printing press as a separate but considerable establishment. It may have a large fleet of transport buses with an army of running staff. It may have a tremendous administrative strength of officers and clerical cadres. It may have karamcharis of various hues. As the Corporation of Nagpur has effectively ruled, these operations, viewed in severalty or collectively, may be

¶27

treated as industry indeed, if a university has 50 transport buses, hiring drivers, conductors, cleaners and workshop technicians. How are they to be denied the benefits of the Act, especially when their work is separable from academic teaching, merely because the buses are owned by the same corporate personality? We find, with all defence, little force in this process of nullification of the industrial character of the University's multi-form operations.” (emphasis laid by this Court) A perusal of the abovementioned two judgments clearly shows that a driver employed by a school, being a skilled person, is a workman for the purpose of the ID Act. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favor of the respondents. The provisions of ID Act are applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶28

From the above stated legal position it is quite vivid that University is an Industry and whether the respondent is Workmen or not can be decided after recording of evidence. Even the learned labour court has not rejected the objection raised by the petitioner but has directed to be raised in the written statement as preliminary objection which can be decided on merit. Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering that in the labour jurisprudence piecemeal objection raised by the Employer is deprecated it amounts to adoption of delay tactics of labour adjudication.

¶29

Considering the above legal and factual matrix, I don’t find any illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by this court in the impugned order. The learned labour court is directed to decide the reference case expeditously and petitioner is also directed to file written statement raising all the objection which they intent to take. The labour court is also directed to frame issue on the objection and same shall be decided along with the merit of the case. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on merit of the case. The above stated legal position has been highlighted to examine the submission. The labour court is free to decide the reference in according to th evidence material place on record by the parties.

¶30

Consequently, the writ petition is being devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/-

¶31

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶32

Ashish

Maharishi University of Management and Technology v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharishi University of Management and Technology v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ragini Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Nishad Vs Himshikhar Gupta

Mahendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Goutam Mandal) Vs State of Chhattisgarh