In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has declared that the Indian Army does not fall under the definition of an 'industry' as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court found that the Labour Court, which had earlier ruled in favor of porters seeking reinstatement and full back wages, lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
"The Army’s core duty is to protect national borders from external aggression, making it a sovereign function."
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta ruled that the Army, as a unit, exists solely for national security. It emphasized that even non-combat personnel like porters, who assist in logistical operations, are integral to these sovereign functions.
Read Also: Courts Cannot Validate Faulty Orders with Later Affidavits, Rules J&K High Court
Legal Precedent and Jurisdiction Issues
The court referred to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa (1978), which established a three-part test to define an industry:
- Systematic activity
- Organized cooperation between employer and employee
- Production or distribution of goods/services for human welfare
The bench noted that these conditions did not apply to the Indian Army. Furthermore, it clarified that the appropriate authority for Army-related disputes is the Central Government, not the J&K Government. The porters had mistakenly approached the J&K Labour Court instead of a tribunal under the Central Government.
Background of the Case
The case involved three porters—Aijaz Ahmad Mir, Mohd Amin Mir, and Tariq Ahmad Malla—who were engaged as casual laborers by the Indian Army from April 2010 to December 2012. Their services were terminated without formal justification. They sought regularization of their jobs and back wages but faced multiple legal hurdles:
Application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Srinagar - Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Appeal to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jammu - Rejected under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Petition to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, J&K - The court ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with back wages.
Challenge in the J&K High Court - The Army contested the ruling, leading to the present decision.
The High Court ruled that the Army does not qualify as an industry under the ID Act. It further observed:
"The Army functions as a single unit with the exclusive objective of defending the nation’s sovereignty. The porters’ work directly contributes to this mission, making their roles inseparable from sovereign functions."
The court set aside the Labour Court’s ruling, but it urged the Army to take a more compassionate approach toward porters.
"The Army should avoid the archaic practice of ‘hire and fire’ and recognize the indispensable role of porters in its operations."
The court directed the Army to clear any pending back wages. If the Army chooses not to reinstate the porters, the ₹5 Lakhs deposited in the court should be distributed equally among them.
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.
Case-Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors, 2025
