Telangana High Court
The Assistant Director Of ... vs The Authority Under Payment Of ... on 24 January, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.23881 OF 2002,
WRIT PETITION NO.24028 OF 2002
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.24312 OF 2002
COMMON ORDER
All these 3 Writ Petitions are filed by the Horticulture
Department against the award of the 1st respondent Authority under
Payment of Wages Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Sangareddy in P.W. Cases No.10 of 1997, 13 of 1997 and 5 of 2001
respectively, dated 28.05.2002.
2. The main ground of the petitioner Horticulture Department in
these cases is that the State Government does not come within the
purview of the Payment of Wages Act or the Industrial Disputes Act
and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the disputes
raised by the 2nd respondent employees. In support of their contention,
learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation
appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat and
others Vs. Pratamsingh Narsingh Parmar1, wherein while dealing
with the dispute raised under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 has held as under:
2001 (4) ALD 23 (SC)
W.P.Nos.23881, 24028
2 and 24312 of 2002
"5. If a dispute arises as to whether a particular
establishment or part of it wherein an appointment has been made
is an industry or not, it would be for the person concerned who
claims the same to be an industry, to give positive facts for coming
to the conclusion that it constitutes "an industry". Ordinarily, a
Department of the Government cannot be held to be an industry
and rather it is a part of the sovereign function. To find out
whether the respondent in the writ petition had made any assertion
that with regard to the duty which he was discharging and with
regard to the activities of the organisation where he had been
recruited, we find that there has not been an iota of assertion to
that effect though, no doubt, it has been contended that the order of
dismissal is vitiated for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act.
The State in its counter affidavit, on the other hand, refuted the
assertion of the respondent in the writ petition and took the
positive stand that the Forest Department cannot be held to be an
industry so that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot
have any application. In the absence of any assertion by the
petitioner in the writ petition indicating the nature of duty
discharged by the petitioner as well as the job of the establishment
where he had been recruited, the High Court wholly erred in law
in applying the principles enunciated in the judgment of this Court
in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare (JT 1995 (9) SC 465) to hold that
the Forest Department could be held to be "an industry." "
5. In the cases before this Court also, the petitioner is Department
of Horticulture of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was).
Therefore, it cannot be held to be an industry under the Payment of
Wages Act or the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the impugned
orders of the 1st respondent dt.28.05.2002 in the Writ Petitions are set
aside.
6. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.
W.P.Nos.23881, 24028
3 and 24312 of 2002
7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 24.01.2022
Svv
