Bombay High Court on Status of Maharashtra Police Academy as an “Industry” and Illegality of Termination of Daily-Wage Employee.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA), though an institution functioning under the Home Department, qualifies as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it performs systematic and organized activities not confined to sovereign functions. The Court affirmed that a daily-wage Computer Operator employed for over eight years was a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act, and her termination without notice or compensation violated Section 25-F. Upholding the Industrial Court’s order for reinstatement with continuity of service, the Court ruled that even government-affiliated autonomous bodies must comply with labour laws when engaging in non-sovereign, remunerative activities.

Background:

1. The Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA), Nashik, engaged the respondent, Bharati Yashwant Salve, as a Computer Operator on a daily-wage basis from 2010. She continuously worked for more than eight years before being terminated abruptly in January 2018 without notice or retrenchment compensation.
2. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, before the Labour Court, Nashik, alleging unfair labour practices.
3. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, declaring the termination illegal and directing reinstatement. The Industrial Court affirmed the decision, leading to the present writ petition by the Academy challenging both orders.
4. The Academy contended that it performs sovereign functions related to police training, and therefore, does not qualify as an “industry.” It further argued that the respondent’s appointment was temporary and irregular, made without any formal recruitment process.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court noted that the Academy, though functioning under the State’s Home Department, is a registered autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
2. It carries out systematic and organized activities such as training, running hostels, canteens, swimming pools, and conducting courses for private security agencies for remuneration—activities which are commercial and not purely sovereign.
3. Applying the test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213, the Court held that the Academy’s functions satisfy the ingredients of an “industry.”
4. The respondent’s duties were clerical and technical, not connected to the exercise of police powers. Hence, she fell squarely within the definition of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. The Court held that the termination was in contravention of Section 25-F, as no notice, compensation, or seniority consideration was given. Such conduct amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
6. Sovereign immunity cannot be invoked to evade statutory labour obligations for employees engaged in non-sovereign functions.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 2(j), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Definition of “Industry.”
2. Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Definition of “Workman.”
3. Sections 25-F & 25-G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Conditions precedent to retrenchment and principles of last come, first go.
4. Section 28, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 – Unfair labour practices.
5. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 – Judicial test for determining “industry.”

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:44998

Case: Maharashtra Police Academy v. Bharati Yashwant Salve

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Writ Petition No.: 9690 of 2025