Central Council Of Homoeopathy Falls Within Definition Of “Industry” Under ID Act: Delhi High Court

Background Facts

Vijay Singh (Respondent) was appointed as a temporary stenographer with the Central Council of Homoeopathy (Petitioner) in 1980. Due to allegations of misconduct, the Respondent was suspended on 23^rd July 1996 and a chargesheet was served upon him on the same day. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication by the appropriate government in 1998. The Respondent was compulsorily retired vide a memorandum dated 19^th October 2000. The Respondent filed an Application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) alleging that the Petitioner did not seek the permission of the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) before compulsorily retiring the Respondent during the pendency of the industrial dispute.

The Tribunal through an award dated 15^th May, 2006, upheld the continuous suspension of the Respondent Workmen. However, the Tribunal held that the Petitioner was an industry and directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent on the basis of violation of Section 33A of ID Act. Thus, the writ petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of award of the Tribunal.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the Tribunal had incorrectly held the Petitioner to be an Industry. Further there were 53 complaints made against the Respondent and more than 85 memos had been served upon him for various misconducts like teasing of lady staff and misbehaving with them, forging the signatures of the Secretary of the Petitioner and threatening the senior officers of the Petitioner. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in imposing the penalty upon the Petitioner under section 31 of the ID Act.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the award was passed taking into account the material on record. During the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the Petitioner wrongfully failed to take any approval from the Tribunal before placing the Respondent on Compulsory Retirement. Thus, the action of the Petitioner is in contravention to Section 33A of the ID Act which stipulates that the condition of service of an employee must remain unchanged during the pendency of an industrial dispute.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that Tribunal had held the Petitioner to be an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act by stating that the Petitioner does no carry out any activity of production, supply or distribution of the material goods and services but it is an advisory in the field of Homeopathy to the Government of India. The Tribunal had further held the Petitioner to be an “industry” by placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.

The Supreme Court in the Banglore Water Supply case had held that an organization is an industry if its work involves cooperation between employer & employee and it is for the production and/or distribution of goods and services to satisfy human needs. Thus, an establishment which carries on philanthropic work is also an industry. Further, it was held that the research institute falls within the definition of “Industry” since they work in a systematic way, with the cooperation of the employer & employee with a motive to do such inventions which are for their own benefit and the benefit of the country in terms of the of goods and services and wealth.

The court further held that since the Petitioner was a research institute working in the field of homeopathy for the Government of India, it is “working with the cooperation of the employer- employee in a systematic way and for the betterment of the homeopathy department of the country, hence, it falls within the ambit of “Industry” under the Act”

The court further observed that Section 33 of the ID Act states that the conditions of service of a workman shall remain unchanged during the pendency of an industrial dispute. However, there are 2 exceptions to the same i.e. conditions of service can be altered for any matter not connected with the dispute and secondly, a workman can be dismissed or punished for any misconduct not connected with the Dispute.

The court also observed that Section 33A of the ID Act provides for the procedure for adjudication on whether the terms of service have been altered during the pendency of the proceedings before a Tribunal.

The court held that the Respondent was compulsorily retired despite the fact that the Industrial Dispute was pending before the Tribunal and thus there was a violation of Section 33 which was duly liable to be punished under Section 31 of the ID Act.

With the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the Tribunal.

Case No.- W.P. (C) 12469/2006 and CM APPL. No. 834/2020 & 11739/2021

Case Name- Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 670

Counsel for Petitioners-

Counsel for Respondents- Mr.Rajat Arora and Mr.Niraj Kumar,