[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Mahila Ayog vs Veer Singh Parihar on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
1 MP-2402-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 2402 of 2021
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA MAHILA AYOG
Versus
VEER SINGH PARIHAR
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Chourasia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajneesh Gupta-Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 502 of 2024
VEER SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajneesh Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Kumar Chourasia-Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
These two petitions have been filed challenging the same award passed
by the Labour Court, one at the instance of the workman and another at the
instance of the employer, therefore, they are being heard together and are
being decided by this common order.
2. The proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act were initiated
by the workman on the ground that he had submitted an application before
the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, (ID Act for short) on 16.10.2014, but despite that, since
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
2 MP-2402-2021
conciliation proceedings have not been concluded, therefore, he filed a
statement of claim before the labour court on 10.12.2014. In the said
statement of claim, it was contended that he was initially appointed in the
establishment of MP State Women's Commission in March 2007 and on
13.09.2014, he has been terminated by oral order, which amounts to a illegal
retrenchment. It was contended by him that the workman was not paid any
retrenchment compensation, though having put in more than 7 years of
service, and therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with
back wages, as he is a victim of illegal retrenchment and is entitled to
protection of Section 25-B and Section 25-F of ID Act. The said application
was contested by the employer on the ground that the workman was not
appointed on any vacant post, but he was appointed as per exigencies of
administration on co-terminus basis against choice quota of one member,
namely Ms. Vandana Mandavi, who was appointed as a member of the
commission and from 16.11.2016 he has been paid on collector rates on
daily wages. It was contended in the reply that his tenure was co-terminous
with the tenure of member Ms. Vandana Mandavi and it does not amount to
any illegal retrenchment as his appointment was co-terminous with the
member and at present the said member is not functioning in the
Commission. On the date of filing of reply, there was in fact no Member and
Chairman in the commission, and no requirement of work was available in
the commission.
3. Another objection was taken that MP Woman's Commission
does not fall within the definition of Section 2-j of Industrial Disputes Act
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
3 MP-2402-2021
and therefore it is not an industry, being not a profit making venture but
being a statutory Commission. It is also not an undertaking even if it is not a
business undertaking, and hence it does not fall within the definition of
industry and undertaking by any stretch of imagination being a statutory
Commission constituted under MP Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam 1995.
4. The Labour Court by the impugned award dated 26-02-2021 has
said that the commission falls within the definition of industry as per section
2-j of ID Act and held that the termination of services of workman amounts
to illegal retrenchment and is entitled to be reinstated in service without
back wages but held that since no vacant post is available then as and when
the post falls vacant, the workmen be reinstated on priority basis. The
aforesaid award has been criticized by both the parties. The Commission is
aggrieved by the said award to the extent that the dispensation of services of
the workmen has been held to be illegal retrenchment and he has been held
to be a workman and the Commission has been held to be industry which are
the findings against the Commission whereas the workman is aggrieved by
the position that ultimately despite giving all findings in favour of the
workman but he has not been given the benefit of reinstatement. It was
vehemently argued by counsel for the workman before this Court that the
tenure of member of commission is only 3 years but the workman was
allowed to work for as many as 7 years and therefore the
employer/commission cannot take the plea of his appointment being co-
terminus with the tenure of member but he was allowed to work much
beyond the tenure of the member, even if it is accepted that he was appointed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
4 MP-2402-2021
on choice post by the member of Commission. As he worked much beyond
the tenure of the Member, hence, there existed workman-employer relation
between the Commission and the workman directly. It is further argued that
the Commission to the extent of engaging employees for menial and
ministerial jobs would fall within the definition of industry.
5 . Per contra, it was vehemently argued by counsel for
employer/commission that the commission would not fall within the
definition of industry because it is a statutory commission and has no
sovereign functions and such statutory Commission performing sovereign
functions cannot be said to be industry in the meaning of ID Act 1947.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case so far as the question that whether MP state
Women's Commission falls within the definition of industry is concerned,
some analogy can be drawn by the status of MP State Legal Services
Authority which is also performing the advisory work in the work of legal
assistance. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Mahesh Bhargava v.
State of MP and others reported in 1993 MPLJ 586 has held that the activity
of State Legal Services Authority (then called as MP Legal Aid and Legal
Advice Board) is a welfare activity but it does not qualify for
exemption from definition of industry only on the ground that it was
constituted in pursuance to Directive Principles of State Policy. It was held
by the Division Bench that sovereign functions have to be strictly understood
and then only they would qualify for exemption but the welfare activities by
Government or statutory bodies cannot be said to be sovereign functions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
5 MP-2402-2021
the State so as to qualify for exemption from scope of Section 2(j) of I.D.
Act. The Division Bench held that once the triple test is satisfied as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Water-Supply &
Sewerage Board vs R. Rajappa & Others reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213 , the
undertaking cannot wriggle out of definition of industry and its obligation to
comply with the Industrial Laws.
8. Upon considering the aforesaid issue further, it is seen by this
court that that MP State Women's Commission has been constituted under
MP Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam and the functions of the commission are
laid down in Section 10 which is as under:-
"10. Functions of the Commission.
(1)The Commission shall be perform all or any of the following functions,
namely :-(a)investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards
provided for women under the Constitution and other laws;(b)present to the
State Government, annually and at such other times as the Commission may
deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;(c)take up the cases of
violation of the provisions of the Constitution and of other laws relating to
women with the appropriate authorities;(d)participate and advise on the
planning process of socio-economic development of women;(e)fund litigation
involving issues affecting a large body of women;(f)make in-depth studies on-
(i)the economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State
with particular emphasis on the tribal districts and areas which are
underdeveloped with respect to women's literacy, mortality and economic
development;(ii)conditions in which women work in factories, establishments,
construction sites and other similar situations, and recommend to the State
Government on the basis of specific reports for improving the status of women
in the said areas;(g)compile information, from time to time, on instances of all
offences against women in the State, or in selected areas, including cases
related to marriage and dowry, rape, kidnapping, abduction, eveteasing,
immoral trafficking in women and cases of medical negligence in causing
delivery or sterilisation or medical intervention that relates to child bearing or
child birth;(h)co-ordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities
against women, if any, for mobilisation of public opinion in the State as a
whole or in specific areas which would help in speedy reporting and detection
of offences of such atrocities and mobilisation of public opinion against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
6 MP-2402-2021
offenders:(i)receive complaints on-(i)atrocities on women and offences against
women;(ii)deprivation of women of their rights relating to minimum wages,
basic health and maternity rights;(iii)non-compliance of policy decisions of the
State Government relating to women;(iv)rehabilitation of deserted and destitute
women and women forced into prostitution;(v)atrocities on women in custody;
and take up with authorities concerned appropriate remedial measures.(j)assist,
train and orient the non-Government organisations in the State in legal
counselling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid;
(k)inspect or cause to be inspected a jail, remand home, women's institutions or
other places of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and
take up with the concerned authorities for remedial action, if found necessary;
(l)perform functions relating to any other matter which may be referred to it by
the State Government.(2)The State Government shall cause all the
recommendations or reports, as may be presented to it by the Commission
under sub-section (1), to be laid before the Legislature of the State alongwith a
memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the
recommendations of the Commission and the reasons for the non-acceptance,
if any, of any of the such recommendations.(3)The Commission shall while
investigating any matter referred to in clause (1) or (i) of sub-section (1) have
all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the
following matters, namely :-(a)summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath;(b)requiring the discovery and production
of any document;(c)receiving evidence on affidavits;(d)requisitioning any
public record or copy thereof from any Court or office;(e)issuing commissions
for the examination of witnesses and documents; and(f)any other matter which
may be prescribed. Chapter-IV Finance, Accounts and Audit".
9. The functions of the commission are in the matter of welfare of
women and these are all welfare activities or advisory activities to the State
Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore water
supply has held in paragraph 163 that sovereign functions in relation to
activities of the State in a republic, the citizen shares the political sovereignty
in which he has a legal share, however small, because he exercises the right
to vote. It was held in paragraph 163 by the separate concurrent opinion of
Chief Justice M. H. Beg as under :-
"163. I would also like to make a few observations about the so-called
"sovereign" functions which have been placed outside the field of industry. I
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
7 MP-2402-2021
do not feel happy about the use of the term "sovereign" here. I think that the
term 'sovereign' should be reserved, technically and more correctly, for the
sphere of ultimate decisions. Sovereignty operates on a sovereign plane of its
own as I suggested in Keshavananda Bharati case [(1973) 4 SCC 225]
supported by a quotation from Ernest Barker's Social and Political Theory.
Again, the term "Regal", from which the term "sovereign" functions appears to
be derived, seems to be a misfit in a Republic where the citizen shares the
political sovereignty in which he has even a legal share, however small,
inasmuch as he exercises the right to vote. What is meant by the use of the
term "sovereign", in relation to the activities of the State, is more accurately
brought out by using the term "governmental" functions although there are
difficulties here also inasmuch as the Government has entered largely new
fields of industry. Therefore, only those services which are governed by
separate rules and constitutional provisions, such as Articles 310 and 311
should, strictly speaking, be excluded from the sphere of industry by necessary
implication."
10. In paragraph 143 while dealing with the dominant feature test,
the majority view was that even if there is a sovereign function then only the
sovereign function part of the undertaking stands excluded and exempted and
not the welfare activities undertaken by the statutory bodies and even in
organizations discharging sovereign functions if there are such units which
are substantially severable then those functions can be considered to be
within Section 2-j. In Paragraph 143 has held as under:-
"143.The dominant nature test:
"(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for
exemption, others not, involves employees on the total undertaking,
some of whom are not 'workmen' as in the University of Delhi
case [University of Delhi v. Ramlfath, (1964) 2 SCR 703 : AIR 1963 SC
1873 : (1963) 2 Lab LJ 335] or some departments are not productive of
goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the
services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in
the Corporation of Nagpur will be the true test. The whole undertaking
will be 'industry' although those who are not 'workmen' by definition
may not benefit by the status.
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly
understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or
economic adventures undertaken by government or statutory bodies.
(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are
units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they
can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may
well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
8 MP-2402-2021
be covered thereby."
11. Therefore, from para 143, it is clear that even if there is an
organization which can be said to be discharging sovereign functions, the
sovereign function part of the undertaking can be severed from the industry
part of the undertaking and by the separate concurring opinion in paragraph
163, every citizen who has a right to vote, has share in sovereignty and only
those services which are governed with separate rules and constitutional
provisions, can be excluded from the sphere of industry.
12. In the present case, nothing has been placed on record by the
Employer/ Commission that what are its separate rules or constitutional
provisions in the matter of employment of employees and to govern the
service conditions of the employees like the workman in this case. In the
case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) , it has been held that any profession,
institution, etc. whether charitable or otherwise, cannot be exempted from
the scope of Section 2-j, if it fulfills the triple test and the triple test is laid
down in paragraph 89 as Systematic Activity, Cooperation between
employer and employee in production of goods or services.
13. Applying the aforesaid ratio in the case of Bangalore Water
Supply (supra), once the commission employees the employees, then to the
extent of employing the employees for discharging the menial, ministerial or
administrative functions, the commission cannot wriggle out of mandatory
provisions of ID Act 1947. Therefore, this court upholds the findings of the
Labour Court that the MP State Women's Commission is an industry within
definition of section 2-j so far as its obligations towards the employees
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
9 MP-2402-2021
which its employs are concerned. It is further noted by this Court that the
findings as contained in the award in paragraph 7 do not match with the
finding as summarised in the tabular form in paragraph. However, looking to
the detailed discussion in paragraph 7, it is seen that the Labour Court has
held the Commission to be an industry and the summarised reply to issue
number 3 in paragraph 5 in tabular form seems to be in clerical mistake.
14. Coming to the second issue of the petitioner being entitled to
reinstatement or not, the case was defended by the Commission on the
ground that the petitioner was employed for a fixed term
employment. However, as per Section 4(1) of Adhiniyam 1995, the tenure of
member and Chairperson will not exceed 3 years. In the present case, the
petitioner has worked from 2007 upto 2014 which is for a period of 7 years
and therefore, it is clear that even if he had been employed as a choice
employee co-terminous with the tenure of the member, even then he was
allowed to continue in service much beyond the tenure of the member and
therefore, having permitted the workman to work for long period beyond the
tenure of the particular member, now it cannot be said by the commission
that his appointment was co-terminous with the member.
15. Even in the reply or in the deposition of commission witness
Ms. Nandita Mitra, nothing was placed on record that when the said member
entered the office and when she demitted the office. In the course of
examination, it was even admitted that another employee like the petitioner
who was working as driver to drive the vehicle of member, namely
Ganesh Nikam, was retrenched but then he has been taken back in service.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
10 MP-2402-2021
Therefore, it is a clear case where other employees have been reinstated
while leaving out the present workman.
16. The work of driving vehicle of members is perpetual, as the
Commission is perpetual. It is irrespective of the position that at a particular
date, the member is in office or not. Once a person has been allowed to work
for 7 years to drive the vehicles of the members, then only on some
particular date, there may be insufficient number of members in the
Commission, cannot be a good ground to terminate the services of the
workman once the commission itself is functioning and the appointment of
new incumbent members is awaited. It was not the case that the sanctioned
strength of members got reduced. It cannot be stated in such case that the
requirement has come to an end. Even in such a event, if the workman had to
be retrenched, then it was to be done after complying with the provisions of
Section 25-F of ID Act and not without that.
17. The counsel for the commission has vehemently argued that at
present, there are no members in the Commission. Even if there are no
members in the Commission at present, it would only be a temporary
vacancy because the State Government has not abolished the Commission.
Appointment of new members and demitting of office by the existing
members is a continuous process which keeps on being performed
perpetually. Only because one member has demitted the office or most of the
members have demitted their office cannot be inferred to mean that the
persons who had been illegally retrenched are not entitled to be reinstated in
service once they were retrenched in violation of mandatory provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
11 MP-2402-2021
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore, looking to the tenure of service of the
workman, which is of 7 years, looking to the status of the workman, at the
most backwages can be denied to him but he could not have been
denied reinstatement on the same status he was holding at the time of
retrenchment.
18. Though learned counsel for the Commission has vehemently
objected to the Petition on the ground that the Petitioner was not working on
any sanctioned post, he was not appointed by conducting any recruitment
process and he did not have any lien to any permanent post and even if the
findings of Labour court went unchallenged by the Commission even then, at
best, it was a case of a back door appointee working on daily wages. This
assertion cannot be accepted because accepting the argument of daily rated
employee, at the most it can be the case where the workman did not have any
lien to the post so as to entitle him to protection of the Rules framed for Civil
Servants of the Commission under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
However, the Commission cannot wriggle out of Industrial law and the
mandatory provisions of Section 25-B and 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act,
once the said Act applies to the Commission.
19. Looking to the status of the workman, at the most, the
backwages could have been denied to the workman but he could not have
been denied reinstatement on the same status that he was holding at the time
of retrenchment.
20. Therefore, the impugned award of the Labour Court is modified
to the extent that the Petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10512
12 MP-2402-2021
backwages till the date of this Order. However, he shall be taken back on
duty forthwith and allowed to discharge his service on the same status that he
was having on the date of retrenchment i.e, a daily rated employee. He would
be entitled to claim salary and any further benefits, only which a daily rated
employee can claim as per Government policies and schemes, from the date
of this order.
21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned
award of the Labour Court stands modified. Accordingly, the Petition of the
workman stands partly allowed, while petition of the Commission is
dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
