Delhi High Court
Indian Institute Of Islamic ... vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 10 November, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Award dated 29.9.1987 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts are that three persons working with the petitioner were terminated. They challenged the validity of their termination and the following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Court:
Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Maulana Abdulla Tariq, Shamshad Ali and Mohiuddin is illegal and unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. The petitioner management raised preliminary issue that it was not an industry. This issue was decided by the Tribunal against the petitioner, apart from the answering the reference against the petitioner. It is undisputed that all the three respondents named in the reference had worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days. It is also undisputed that their services were terminated without holding inquiry and without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the Act). The learned Counsel for the petitioner during the argument before this Court raised only one issue that the petitioner was not an industry. He submitted that the learned Labour Court while holding that petitioner was not an industry had not discussed why the petitioner was not an industry and it had only observed that there was no law that a minority community institution can dismiss its employees without complying with the provisions of industrial law. It is submitted that Tribunal had failed to address the issue of industry and failed to consider whether the petitioner was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act or not.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent in reply to this argument, submitted that the petitioner in fact had given up this issue and had not pressed the issue that is the reason that there was no argument on this issue. He drew my attention to another Award passed in ID No. 617/1986 in respect of workman K.S. Durani wherein this issue was framed and the counsel for the petitioner had taken the stand that he does not press this issue since petitioner was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. He also drew my attention to the written argument filed in this case by the petitioner before the Labour Court wherein petitioner had taken the stand that since WPC No. 613/85 titled I.I.S v. Delhi Administration was already pending before the High Court and the High Court will decide the applicability and non-applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter be kept pending.
5. A perusal of the written arguments filed by the management would show that in the written arguments petitioner had taken the stand that on account of its being minority community institution it was protected by Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India. A minority community has a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their own choice, hence the petitioner was not covered under the I.D. Act. The petitioner had not advanced any argument before the Tribunal that it was not an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply's case but arguments were addressed that it being a minority institution was not covered under the Act. No fault can be found with the Labour Court in dealing with the issue in the manner it had dealt with.
5. It is settled law that an educational institution is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. Educational institutions are being run like industries and they are industries. In 1988 SCC L&S 53- C.M.C. Hospital Emp. Union v. C.M.C. Vellore Association, Supreme court has held that the Industrial Disputes Act shall apply to educational institutes even if they are minority institute and protected under Section 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Act applies to all institutions, irrespective of religion or cast, to which the party belongs. I consider that the Act shall be applicable in case of the petitioner institute.
6. I find no merit in the writ petition. Petition is hereby dismissed.
