Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving the Army, as the Indian Army cannot be classified as an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

A Division bench of Justice Puneet Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Kumar, presiding over the High Court’s Srinagar Bench, delivered the verdict while setting aside the Labour Court’s award and the High Court’s single judge bench’s judgment. 

The appeals challenged the judgment dated February 23, 2024, passed by the Single Judge, where the court upheld the Labour Court’s award dated June 15, 2016, which directed the reinstatement of three casual porters, Aijaz Ahmed Mir, Tariq Ahmed Malla, and Mohd Amin Mir, who were engaged by the appellants (Army authorities) from April 2010 to December 2012 on a need basis and were subsequently disengaged.

The casual porters (respondents) challenged their disengagement and sought regularization of their services. After initial proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Srinagar, and the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Jammu, proved unfruitful, they approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. 

The Labour Court held that the appellants’ activities as porters were not linked to protecting state sovereignty and thus fell under the definition of “Industry” under the ID Act. It found the reference maintainable due to the Conciliation Officer's failure to submit a report within 45 days. On merits, the termination was deemed unlawful for violating Sections 25-B and 25-F of the ID Act. The court ordered the petitioners' reinstatement with full back wages and 8% annual interest until payment.

Opposing the award granted by the Labour Court and its subsequent affirmation by the Writ Court, the appellants, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) T. M. Shamsi, along with Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Fizan Ahmad Ganai, argued that the Army’s primary function is to protect national sovereignty and integrity, a sovereign function exempt from the purview of the term “industry.” The Army contended that porters assist in sovereign duties like transporting ammunition, supplies, and evacuating casualties in inaccessible terrains, which are inherently sovereign and non-industrial activities.

Referring to the landmark Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) case, the court reiterated the “triple test” for defining an industry:

• Systematic activity,
• Organized by cooperation between employer and employees, and
• Aimed at producing goods or services to satisfy human needs.

The court noted that while the Army engages porters to assist with operational tasks, its primary function—ensuring the security and sovereignty of the nation—remains a sovereign activity that cannot be severed or classified as an industrial operation.

The court observed: “It is not the case of writ petitioners that the Units, in which they are engaged, are not engaged in the activities which are sovereign in nature and, therefore, severable. The Army functions as a single Unit with the sole aim and objective of protecting the borders of the country against external aggression. The porters which are engaged as labour for activities, like carrying ration and ammunition to inaccessible and difficult terrains, definitely contribute immensely to the duties which the Army is required to perform in the exercise of its sovereign functions.”

Furthermore, the court highlighted procedural lapses by the petitioners, particularly their failure to approach the Central Government, the appropriate authority under the ID Act, for conciliation proceedings. The court ruled that the Labour Court, constituted by the Jammu & Kashmir government, lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter without a valid reference from the appropriate government. “The ALC, Srinagar was not a Conciliation Officer appointed by the Central Government (the appropriate government), and, therefore, the proceedings filed before him by the writ petitioners were without jurisdiction and non-existent,” the court ruled.

The court held: “Viewed from any angle the Indian Army…cannot be termed as “Industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the ID Act. Neither the Labour Court nor the Writ Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the light of legal position settled by a Seven Judge Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case.”

Conclusively, the court set aside the Labour Court’s decision.

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.
Cause Title:  General Officer Commanding, HQ 15 CORPS, Q (OPS) C/O 56 APO v Aijaz Ahmad Mir and other connected matters.