# Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants & Ors v. Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 715
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1005010 of 2006
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/central-institute-of-medicinal-aromatic-plants-ors-v-sri-rishi-dev-mishra-ors-52975
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mata Prasad Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge to the
"common award dated 15th September, 2005"
passed
by
the
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur, holding that "Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow is an
'Industry' within the meaning of provision 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947", and whether
CIMAP, "being a purely research and scientific
organization functioning under the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research", falls within
the definition of "industry" under S. 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras 1, 11-13,
17-19)

Headnotes
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 2(j) -
Definition
of
'Industry'
-
Research
Organizations
-
Central
Institute
of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants is purely a
research organization and not engaged in
any
trade,
business,
or
commercial
activities" and therefore "does not satisfy
the test of being an 'Industry'" under S.
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.
14(2) - Jurisdiction - The funds of the
Institute are derived entirely from grants
made available by the Department of
Science & Technology, Government of
India" and that CSIR and its institutes are
governed by the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 pursuant to Notification dated
31.10.1986 issued under S. 14(2) of the
said Act - Respondents supported the
award contending that the petitioners "fall
within
the
definition
of
the
term
'Industry' as provided under Section
2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
- Court examined Ss. 2(j) and 2(k) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
noted that the definition of "industry"
under the Central and U.P. Acts is "one
and the same" - Reliance was placed on
Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G.
Sharma, wherein the Supreme Court
held that an institution engaged in
research "cannot be described as an
economic
venture or
a commercial
enterprise" and "is not an industry".
(Paras-3,4,9,11-17)
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: CIMAP, Lucknow, being a Society
controlled by the Central Government is
primarily
engaged
in
scientific
research
concerning medicinal and aromatic plants - The
object of the institute is not to carry on trade or
business or to earn profit, but to carry out
research in the national interest and for public
welfare - The activity undertaken by C.I.M.A.P.
is thus academic and scientific in nature and
cannot be equated with any commercial or
industrial venture - A research institute is not an
industry within the meaning of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 as well as Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - The Central
Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants,
Lucknow does not fall within the definition of
'Industry' under S. 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 - Impugned award dated
15th September, 2005 was set aside and all the
writ petitions are allowed except the writ
petitions filed by individuals, which were
dismissed. (Paras 17 - 20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma,
(1997) 4 SCC 257; Prem Chandra v. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow (U.P.),
decided on 20.01.2020

List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947; Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985; Societies Registration Act, 1860;
Constitution of India; Article 226.

List of Keywords
Industry;
purely
a
research
organization;
scientific
research;
trade
or
business;
commercial or industrial venture; public welfare;
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research; Section 2(j).

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION:
Common
award
dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute
Case No.149 of 1998 and connected cases.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioners:
Asit Kumar Chaturvedi
Dharmendra Kumar Dixit
Advs. fo

## Text

12 All. Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants & Ors. Vs. Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. 715
impugned orders have been made party to
the writ petition, therefore, necessary
parties have been impleaded in the array of
parties of the respondents, thus, this
argument of the learned Standing Counsel
is also rejected in view of the aforesaid
reasons.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion
and reasons recorded above, the impugned
orders dated 5.1.1985, 17.8.2001 and
29.6.2006 are hereby set aside. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, District Collector is
directed to hear the matter after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
may pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of six months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 715
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1005010 of 2006
With connected cases

Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic
Plants & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Dharmendra Kumar
Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mata Prasad Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge to the
"common award dated 15th September, 2005"
passed
by
the
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur, holding that "Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow is an
'Industry' within the meaning of provision 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947", and whether
CIMAP, "being a purely research and scientific
organization functioning under the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research", falls within
the definition of "industry" under S. 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras 1, 11-13,
17-19)

Headnotes
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 2(j) -
Definition
of
'Industry'
-
Research
Organizations
-
Central
Institute
of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants is purely a
research organization and not engaged in
any
trade,
business,
or
commercial
activities" and therefore "does not satisfy
the test of being an 'Industry'" under S.
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.
14(2) - Jurisdiction - The funds of the
Institute are derived entirely from grants
made available by the Department of
Science & Technology, Government of
India" and that CSIR and its institutes are
governed by the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 pursuant to Notification dated
31.10.1986 issued under S. 14(2) of the
said Act - Respondents supported the
award contending that the petitioners "fall
within
the
definition
of
the
term
'Industry' as provided under Section
2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
- Court examined Ss. 2(j) and 2(k) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
noted that the definition of "industry"
under the Central and U.P. Acts is "one
and the same" - Reliance was placed on
Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G.
Sharma, wherein the Supreme Court
held that an institution engaged in
research "cannot be described as an
economic
venture or
a commercial
enterprise" and "is not an industry".
(Paras-3,4,9,11-17)
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: CIMAP, Lucknow, being a Society
controlled by the Central Government is
primarily
engaged
in
scientific
research
concerning medicinal and aromatic plants - The
object of the institute is not to carry on trade or
business or to earn profit, but to carry out
research in the national interest and for public
welfare - The activity undertaken by C.I.M.A.P.
is thus academic and scientific in nature and
cannot be equated with any commercial or
industrial venture - A research institute is not an
industry within the meaning of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 as well as Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - The Central
Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants,
Lucknow does not fall within the definition of
'Industry' under S. 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 - Impugned award dated
15th September, 2005 was set aside and all the
writ petitions are allowed except the writ
petitions filed by individuals, which were
dismissed. (Paras 17 - 20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma,
(1997) 4 SCC 257; Prem Chandra v. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow (U.P.),
decided on 20.01.2020

List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947; Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985; Societies Registration Act, 1860;
Constitution of India; Article 226.

List of Keywords
Industry;
purely
a
research
organization;
scientific
research;
trade
or
business;
commercial or industrial venture; public welfare;
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research; Section 2(j).

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION:
Common
award
dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute
Case No.149 of 1998 and connected cases.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioners:
Asit Kumar Chaturvedi
Dharmendra Kumar Dixit
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mata Prasad Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners are challenging the
validity of the common award dated 15th
September, 2005 given by the Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court,
Kanpur
(respondent no.2) in Industrial Dispute
Case No.149 of 1998 (Rishidev Mishra v.
Director, Central Institute of Medicinal &
Aromatic Plants, Lucknow) and Industrial
Dispute Case Nos.151/98, 145/98, 148/98,
154/98, 152/98, 153/98, 150/98, 146/98,
144/98, 147/98, 126/98, 122/98, 99/98,
119/98, 120/98, 123/98 and 124/98 and
published by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour (respondent no.3)
through
Notification
dated
22nd
September, 2005 and sent by the Secretary,
central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Kanpur, through letter
dated 6th December, 2005 as far as it
relates to the Central Institute of Medicinal
&
Aromatic
Plants,
Lucknow,
a
constituent/
Institute
of
Council
of
Scientific and Industrial Research, New
Delhi, a society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 is an 'Industry'
within the meaning of provision 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The bunch of the writ petition
involves common questions of facta and
law, hence with the consent of parties, writ
petitions are decided by the present
common judgment.

2. Factual matrix of the case is
that
the
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Kanpur, respondent no.2,
12 All. Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants & Ors. Vs. Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. 717
passed a common award dated 15.09.2005
in ID case No.149 of 1998 (Rishidev
Mishra v. Director, Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow)
and Industrial Dispute Case Nos.151/98,
145/98, 148/98, 154/98, 152/98, 153/98,
150/98, 146/98, 144/98, 147/98, 126/98,
122/98, 99/98, 119/98, 120/98, 123/98 and
124/98 as far as it relates to the Central
Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants,
Lucknow a constituent/ Institute of Council
of Scientific and Industrial research, New
Delhi, a society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 is an 'industry'
within the meaning of provision 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The
respondent
no.1
raised
conciliation
proceedings
before
the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Kanpur under the provisions of Industrial
Tribunal Act, 1947 with respect to alleged
disengagement of their employment with
Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic
Plants, Lucknow/ Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, New Delhi impleading
there in the Director/ Central Institute of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow
and not M/s Vikas Security Guards
Services,
Lucknow.
The
conciliation
proceedings failed resulting which the
Regional Labour commissioner (North)
Kanpur submitted failure report to the
respondent no.3.

After the submission of the
conciliation failure report, the matter was
referred
to
the
Central
Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court/
Kanpur by the respondent no.3 through
letter dated 21.04.1998. The respondent
no.1 filed the claim application date
16.09.1998, replication to the written
statement dated 25.05.199, application
dated 17.09.2001 for filing 2 documents
and Oath administered by the Presiding
Officer to the deponent dated 12.09.2001
before the Presiding Officer, Central
Government,
Industrial
Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Kanpur.

The
petitioners
filed
written
statements dated 29.10.1998, stating therein
various issues including that the provisions
of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are not
applicable upon the CSIR, New Delhi or its
constituent institutes including CIMAP,
Lucknow as it is not an 'Industry' and also
filed list of documents on behalf of
CIMAP,
Lucknow
in
June,
2000,
application on behalf of Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow for
framing of additional issue was filed on
29.8.2000.

The Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Kanpur passed the orders
dated 13.2.2001. The statement of Shri
Rishi
Dev
Misra
was
recorded
on
12.09.2001 and the affidavit in evidence on
behalf of Central Institute of Medicinal &
Aromatic Plants, Lucknow was also filed
on 04.06.2002.

The petitioners filed writ petition
no.1676 of 2002 (S/S) (Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow &
others v. Rishi Devi Misra & another)
which is still pending consideration.

The Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-
Labour
Court,
Kanpur
decided
the
Adjudication Case No.149 of 1998 (Rishi
Dev Mishra v. Director, Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow),
through a common award dated 15th
September, 2005 without considering the
evidences available on record on merits as
well as on the question of 'industry'.

The respondent no.2 award dated
15th September, 2005 was considered at
various levels in CIMAP, Lucknow and
CSIR, New Delhi and ultimately decision
was communicated through letters dated
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14.02.2006 and 26.04.2006 that the award
dated 15th September, 2005 be challenged
before this Court through a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the Central Institute of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants is purely a
research organization and not engaged in
any
trade,
business,
or
commercial
activities and its primary function is to
undertake scientific research with a view to
promoting the welfare of people preserving
natural resources and minimizing the
undesirable
effects
of
industrial
and
agricultural activities. In this view of the
matter, he submitted that it does not satisfy
the
test
of
being
an
'Industry'
as
contemplated under Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Section
2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submitted that the funds of the
Institute are derived entrily from grants
made available by the Department of
Science & Technology, Government of
India. The Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research and its constituent
institutes are under administrative control
of the Central Government. By virtue of
the notification dated 31.10.1986 issued
under Section 14(2) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research, New
Delhi has been brought within the
purview of the said Act. Consequently,
all service matters pertaining to emplyees
of CSIR and its institutes, including
CIMAP are governed by the provisions of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
and not by the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submitted that the Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow/
Council
of
Scientific
and
Industrial
Research, New Delhi cannot be termed as
an 'Industry' in any case either practically
or legally in favour of the organization.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submitted that the respondent nos.2
and 3 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the matter as it is applying the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 which is not applicable upon the
Department of Science & Technology,
Government of India, nor upon the council
of Scientific & Industrial Research, New
Delhi/ Central Institute of Medicinal &
Aromatic Plants, Lucknow.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submitted that only the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 is applicable on the
petitioners since the Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow is
a constituent Unit of Council of Scientific
& Industrial Research, New Delhi and the
Council
of
Scientific
&
Industrial
Research, New Delhi has been notified
under the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985.

8. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgments:

(i) Physical Research Laboratory
v. K.G. Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257

(ii) Prem Chandra v. Presiding
Officer,
Industrial
Tribunal,
Lucknow
(U.P.) decided on 20.1.2020.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents supported the impugned order
12 All. Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants & Ors. Vs. Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. 719
and stated that the petitioners fall within the
definition of the term 'Industry' as provided
under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947.

10. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record as well as case-law cited by learned
counsel for the petitioners.

11.
To
resolve
the
controversy
involved in the present writ petition,
Section 2(j) and Section 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as
under:

"2(j)
"industry"
means
any
business, trade undertaking, manufacturer
or calling of employers and includes any
calling, service, employment, handicraft, or
industry
occupation
or
avocation
of
workmen.

2(k)
'Industry'
means
any
business, trade, undertaking, manufacturer
or calling of employers and includes any
calling, service, employment, handicraft, or
industrial occupation or avocation of
workmen;

12. Perusal of the aforesaid sections
reveals that the definition of 'industry' in
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is one
and the same.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on judgment rendered ...... (supra)
operative portion of which are quoted herein-below:

"13. It is nobody's case that PRL
is engaged in an activity which can be
called business trade or manufacturer.
Neither from the nature of its organization
nor from the nature and character of the
activity carried on by it, can it be said to be
an "undertaking" analogous to business or
trade. It is not engaged in a commercial
industrial activity and it cannot be
described as an economic venture or a
commercial enterprise as it is not its object
to produce and distribute services which
would satisfy wants and needs of the
consumer community. It is more an
institution
discharging
governmental
functions and a domestic enterprise than a
commercial enterprise. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that PRL is not an industry
even though it is carrying on the activity of
research in a systematic manner with the
help of its employees as it lacks that
element
which
would
make
it
an
organization carrying on an activity which
can be said to be analogous to the carrying
on of a trade or business because it is not
producing and distributing services which
are intended or meant for satisfying human
wants
and
needs,
as
ordinarily
understood."

14. Perusal of the above-extracted
judgment reveals that the Hon'ble Supreme
while considering the issue that whether the
'Physical Research Laboratory' is an
industry, gave opinion that that PRL is not
an industry even though it is carrying on
the activity of research in a systematic
manner with the help of its employees as it
lacks that element which would make it an
organization carrying on an activity which
can be said to be analogous to the carrying
on of a trade or business because it is not
producing and distributing services which
are intended or meant for satisfying human
wants and needs, as ordinarily understood.

15. Learned counsel also relied upon
the judgment dated 20.01.2020, wherein
while relying on the judgment rendered in
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of Physical Research Laboratory
(supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court
held that a national research institution of
Council
for
Scientific
&
Industrial
Research i.e. CSIR-Central Drug Research
Institute, Lucknow is not an industry under
Section 2(k) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No.XXXVIII
of 1947) while upholding the Award dated
8.7.1997 of the Industrial Tribunal (II)
Lucknow.

16. I have examined the material on
record in the light of case-laws cited by
learned counsel for the petitioners.

17. On examination, it is found that
Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic
Plants, Lucknow ; CSIR- Indian Institute of
Toxicology
Research,
Lucknow;
CSIRNational
Botanical
Research
Institute,
Lucknow which has been notified under
Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal
Act,
1985
through
Notification
No.R11018/16/86-At dated 31.10.1986 being a
Society controlled by the Central Government
is primarily engaged in scientific research
concerning medicinal and aromatic plants. The
object of the institute is not to carry on trade or
business or to earn profit, but to carry out
research in the national interest and for public
welfare.
The
activity
undertaken
by
C.I.M.A.P. is thus academic and scientific in
nature and cannot be equated with any
commercial or industrial venture. In this view
of the matter, the judgment rendered in the
case of Physical Research Laboratory
(supra) vide which this Hon'ble Supreme
Court clarified that institutions engaged solely
in research or educational functions, devoid of
commercial or economic character, cannot be
treated as 'industry' squarely covers to the
present facts and circumstances of the present
case.

18. It is settled principle of law that a
research institute is not an industry within the
meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as
well as Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act,
1947. The other legal and factual issues may
not be decided keeping in view of the
aforesaid settled principle of law.

19. Considering in totalities of facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the Central Institute of Medicinal
and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow being a purely
research
and
scientific
organization
functioning under the Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research does not fall within
the definition of 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

20. In the result, all the writ petitions are
allowed, except Writ-C No.1004654 of 2005
(Shiv Narain Singh and another v. Presiding
Officer, labour Court, U.P., Lucknow and
another), Writ-C No.1000938 of 2006 (Rishi
Deo Mishra and 4 others v. Presiding Officer,
Central Govt. Industrial Trib. And Anr.), Writ-C
No.1000940 of 2006 (Hari Shanker Dubey and 3
Ors. v. Presiding Officer Cental Govt. Industrial
Trib. And Anr.) and Writ-A No.8817 of 1992
(Rajendra Mishra v. Industrial Tribunal), being
filed by the petitioners in individual capacity,
which are hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 720
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7111 of 2025

Lko. Development Authority ...Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Nirupama Singh & Anr.
 ...Respondents