(1.) ISHAR Dass, petitioner, has approached this court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by filing the writ petition for quashing the award of the labour Court, Amritsar, dated 6 March 1986, by which the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was never the employee of the amritsar District Bakers Syndicate, nor were his services terminated on 1 April 1981, as alleged by the petitioner. As a result thereof, the reference made to the Labour Court, amritsar, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, in 1961, an association of bakers came into existence in Amritsar under the name and style of Amritsar district Bakers Association, Katra Sher singh, which was later changed to be the amritsar District Bakers Syndicate, Loh Garh, amritsar. To start with, the petitioner remained associated with the association in various capacities and sought election to its various offices but later on became its employee at a monthly salary of Rs. 600. The president of the said Syndicate on 1 April 1981, paid a sum of Rs. 7,4)0 for the period from 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1981, at the rate of Rs. 600 per month, by passing the order, annexure P1, which reads as under :

" Sri lshar Dass Goel, General Secretary, amritsar District Bakers Syndicate, amritsar, has been paid his salary amounting to rs. 7,200 for the period from 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1981, at the rate of rs. 600 per month for Amritsar District Bakers Syndicate. (Sd.)Kunj Lal Aggarwal, president. "

According to the petitioner, since the above order amounted to termination of his service without assigning any reason or without any notice, etc. , under Ss. 25f and 25g of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he submitted a demand notice and ultimately got a reference made to the Labour Court, Amritsar, respondent 1.

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the respondent syndicate contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Syndicate was not covered by the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the question of the petitioner being a workman did not arise. On the parity of reasoning, it was further pleaded that there was no question of any termination of services of the petitioner, much less the compliance of the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act.

(4.) AGREEING with the stand taken by the syndicate, the Labour Court rejected the reference. It is this award of the Labour court, Amritsar, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, argued by the petitioner appearing in person.

(5.) IT is too late in the day to hold that the Amritsar District Bakers Syndicate is not an "industry" covered within the definition of the term under the Industrial Disputes Act. The syndicate owned several godowns where stocks of maida, etc. , were being kept. The commercial business of the Syndicate was being run in systematic manner and the syndicate was engaged in production activity with the help of its employees. The President of the Syndicate, Sri Kunj Lal Aggarwal, appeared as M. W. I and stated that the syndicate was being run under the Shops and commercial Establishments Act. It was further admitted that the whole administration of the Syndicate was being run by the workman (petitioner). This position has been endorsed by the secretary of the syndicate, Sri Kishore Chand, M. W. 2. In view of this the findings of the Labour Court that the Syndicate was not covered within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial disputes Act is not correct in the eye law.

(6.) ONCE it is found that the respondent-Syndicate is covered under the definition of "industry " the petitioners services could not be terminated in a non-ceremonious manner with effect from 1 April 1981, by paying his salary for the preceding year. The compliance of the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act was necessary before terminating his services. It is, therefore, held that the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was illegal. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is now of more than seventy years age and his reinstatement in the service is neither going to help the petitioner nor the Syndicate. Consequently, the impugned award of the labour Court is set aside and instead of reinstating the petitioner to the service of the syndicate, it is directed that a sum equivalent to three years salary admissible to the petitioner, on the basis of the wages drawn in March 1981, shall be paid to him by the Syndicate within three months from today.

(7.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.