Indian Army's Core Function Of National Security Is A Sovereign Function, Cannot Be Categorized As 'Industry': J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The court said that it was not the case of the writ petitioners that their role as non-combat personnel providing porter services was severable from sovereign functions, to be classified as an industry.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta observed that the Army, as a unit, has the sole purpose of protecting the borders from external aggression, and the porters engaged as labourers for activities like carrying rations and ammunition to inaccessible and difficult terrains definitely contribute immensely to the duties that the Army is required to perform in the exercise of its sovereign functions.

The court relied on Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa (1978), wherein the Supreme Court laid down the triple test for an industry, i.e., Systematic activity, Organized cooperation between employer and employee, and Production or distribution of goods/services for human welfare.

The court also said that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because the appropriate government for Army-related disputes is the Central Government, not the J&K Government. It added that the petitioners had wrongly approached the J&K Labour Court, as they needed to seek redress from a tribunal constituted by the Central Government.

The court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. However, the court advised the Indian Army to adopt a more compassionate approach toward porters, given their continuous service needs. It observed that it would not be in the fitness of things to permit the Army to follow an archaic practice of “hire and fire.”

The court also directed the appellants to clear any back wages to the writ petitioners, and should the appellants not hire the writ petitioners, the ₹5 Lakhs deposited by the appellants should be paid to the writ petitioners in equal shares to enable them to settle in life.

BACKGROUND:

The petitioners were engaged as casual porters by the Indian Army from April 2010 to December 2012. They were terminated in December 2012 without formal justification, citing a lack of work. The petitioners demanded regularization of their employment and filed legal notices, which were denied on the grounds that no such provision existed for casual porters.

The petitioners approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Srinagar, seeking redress under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947. Their application was dismissed, ruling the dispute beyond the scope of the ID Act. They then moved the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jammu, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which was also dismissed citing a lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioners eventually approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, J&K, under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act, seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Labour Court ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The Indian Army challenged this ruling before the J&K High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's award. The Army then filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPA) before the Division Bench.

APPEARANCE:

For Appellants: Mr. T. M. Shamsi DSGI with Mr. Fizan Ahmad Ganai CGSC.

For Respondents: Mr. M.M.Dar Advocate with Mr. U.M.Banday and Mr. Zaffar Mehdi Advocates.

Case-Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

.Click Here To Read/Download Order