Radheshyam Dubey vs Board Of Apprenticeship ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 656 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. This Petition is directed against an order dated June 5, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the reference for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable on the ground that the First Respondent is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Respondent is an organisation called the Board of Apprenticeship Training, Western Region, Mumbai. The First Respondent is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department'. of Education, Government of India and is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, I860. Under the Memorandum of Association, the main object of the First Respondent is to organize" practical training for graduates and diploma holders in engineering and technology in order to equip them with practical experience for gainful employment. The Board is also conferred with the function of implementing the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 in so far as they relate to the training of graduates and technical apprentices. In order to achieve these objects, the Board is required to establish a permanent liaison with technical institutions and industries located in the region comprising of the States as of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Goa and the Union Territories of Daman and Diu. The Board has to secure and provide training facilities in different establishments both in the private and public sectors; to select student trainees and arrange for their placements; to prepare programmes of training; to supervise training with the help; of training field officers; to disburse stipends to trainees; to award certificates to trainees, to arrange dissemination of information and to provide for expert and advisory services in the field of practical training to both technical institutions and industry. The Board is managed by a fund consisting of amounts sanctioned by the Government of India, fees and other charges received by the Board and monies received by way of gifts and donations.

3. In order to decide as to whether the Board is an industry, evidence came to be recorded. In so far as this issue is concerned, it would be necessary to extract the following answers that was furnished in the course of the cross examination by the witness who deposed on behalf of the Board. The witness was Mr. S.P.S. Rathore, Director of Training. The witness deposed thus:

"We inspect establishments, assess their training facilities and advice to recruit apprentices and to train them. 32 employees work in the Board, as regular employees. We require the assistance of all these employees. We function in an organized systematic manner. We are rendering training facilities services to the apprentices. Our officers give periodical visit to respective establishments to supervise the apprenticeship training. We maintain record of all the establishments. We charge fees for training programmes from outside apprentices, hosted by Companies. We charge about Rs. 50 per day, per head. In a year we hold about 10 seminars."

4. The aims and objects of the Board and the facts which have emerged from the deposition of the Board's witness leaves no manner of doubt that the Board is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That an educational institution is an industry is now well-settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa . This has subsequently been followed by a Bench of two Learned Judges of the Supreme Court in A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, : There is in the present case undoubtedly a systematic activity to provide services aimed at rendering training facilities to apprentices. The Board employs 32 employees and it is an admitted position that it functions in an organized and systematic manner. This is, therefore, a case where an organised activity involving the relationship of employer and employee exists in which the main objective is to provide training facilities for apprentices. Diverse aspects including the provision of training placements and the disbursal of stipends are catered to. In the circumstances, the tests for an organization to meet the definition of industry under Section 2(j) are clearly fulfilled. The Industrial Tribunal was hence clearly in error in rejecting the reference on the preliminary ground that the Board is not an industry. The Board does not discharge a sovereign or inalienable function of the State.

5. The Petition is in the circumstances allowed. The order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated June 5, 2003 is quashed and set aside. Reference No. CG1T-2/107 of 2000 shall stand restored to the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for disposal on merits. Since it has been stated that there is a vacancy in CGIT- 2, it would be appropriate to direct that the reference shall be disposed of by the learned Judge presiding over in CGIT- 1. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Parties be given a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate/Personal Secretary.