Maharashtra Police Academy Falls Within Purview Of 'Industry' U/S 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA) is an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upheld the direction of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent, who had worked as a Computer Operator on daily wages. The Court observed that the functions performed by the...
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA) is an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upheld the direction of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent, who had worked as a Computer Operator on daily wages. The Court observed that the functions performed by the Academy were not confined to sovereign activities and that clerical or computer-related duties undertaken in such an institution fall squarely within the definition of “industry”.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a petition filed by the Maharashtra Police Academy challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court, which had allowed the respondent's complaint on the ground that she had completed more than 240 days of continuous service every year and that her termination was illegal. The Academy contended that it was engaged in the training of police personnel, a sovereign function, and therefore did not fall within the definition of “industry”.
The Court observed that the Academy not only trained police personnel but also levied charges for various facilities and imparted training to private security agencies, which brought its activities within the ambit of systematic and organised industrial functioning.
“… Petitioner - Academy was established to train police officers of all ranks and other Central and State Government officers and hence in this regard they may be performing sovereign functions however it is not disputed that Petitioner - Academy also conducts training of private security agencies in exchange for fees. This training is not performed in exercise of sovereign functions hence Petitioner - Academy falls within the purview of industry as defined under Section 2(j) of ID Act,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that the legislature enacted a specific provision in Section 25F ID Act that lays down a precursor to the retrenchment of any workman. To avoid ambiguity and discrimination between permanent workmen and daily/wage workmen, the provision clearly lays down the condition that workmen in continuous service for not less than one year will be entitled to benefit of this provision.
The Court noted that no reason for termination was assigned to Respondent by Petitioner-Academy, and neither was any retrenchment compensation paid to her. Further, no termination notice was issued to the Respondent, denying her the opportunity of a hearing. It observed:
“In the present case, Respondent is admittedly in continuous service with Petitioner - Academy for more than 8 years and she has completed requisite 240 days of continuous service hence she was entitled to notice before retrenchment and compensation.”
Finding no infirmity in the Industrial Court's reasoning, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the direction to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service.
Case Title: Maharashtra Police Academy v. Bharati Yashwant Salve [WRIT PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2025]