Dayawati vs The Presiding Officer, Central ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 479 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. The crux of the case is that the petitioner's husband Shri Balwan Singh joined the services of respondent No.2 as a Peon. The petitioner's husband's services were terminated by respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason on 24.2.98. Against this order of termination the petitioner's husband filed an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the appropriate Government had referred the dispute for adjudication to respondent No.1. Before respondent No.1 the petitioner's husband challenged his illegal termination and claimed for reinstatement of his services with full backwages. During the pendency of the dispute before respondent No.1 the petitioner's husband died and the petitioner was substituted as legal representative of her deceased husband before respondent No.1. On 1.9.97 respondent No.1 passed the impugned award inter alia stating that "In view of this situation since the management is not an industry so the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable to this Tribunal."

2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 1.9.97 in this writ petition by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the petitioner herein on the ground that the telecom department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(8) SCC 488 Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Vs. Theyyam Joseph and others. The Tribunal had relied upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as General Manager Telecom Vs. A. Srinivasa Rao and others 1997(7) Scale 99 where it has been held that it is not permissible for a Bench of three or for that matter any Bench of lesser strength to take a view contrary to that in the Bangalore Water Supply case. In the said judgment of General Manager Telecom (supra) it was held that the telecom department of the Union of India was an Industry within the meaning of industry as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 1.9.1997 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

4. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.