MeaningImage result for Employer in industry of Labour Laws

The definition does not really define the term. It only describes as to who constitutes an Employer in the case of an industry carried on by or under the Government, including the civic authority. The corporate authority or the private industry has remained unexplained and in their cases, the court will have to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case. On combined reading of Section 2 (g), 2 (j) and 2 (s), it is clear that if State Government carries on any business or undertaking, it is the Employer under the Act. It means that the deformation is intended only to operate in relation to an activity properly described as an industry [Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v/s Gymkhana Club, 1967 II LLJ 720 (SC)].

Direct Nexus is Necessary

In order to make the Government liable as Employer, a direct nexus is necessary between the Employer and the authority of government. In Shred-haran v/s L.C, 1966 II LLJ 632, One person who was given a license for Toddy tapping was directed by the Labour Court to pay retrenchment compensation to his employee when his license was cancelled by the Government and consequently he had terminated of his employees. The said person Challenged the said order of the Labour Court on the ground that he was only a licensee and not the “Employer”, the Government, really was the Employer. The court held that there must be direct nexus as provided under Section 2 (g) (i) and the Government cannot be held to be the Employer in this case.

Other Employers

The definition, as aforesaid, is intended to operate in relation to an activity, properly described as an “industry”. However, it is silent in respect of public corporations or Semi-overnment
bodies. Necessarily, therefore the court will have to decide as to who is the ‘Employer’ on the facts and circumstances of each case. Similarly, the definition is silent on the point of ‘Employer’ in cases of private Employer. Nevertheless, it must be clear that the definition does not specifically excludes a private Employer from its fold and as such the private employer is intended to be covered under the Act.
The meaning given in the definition to the term ‘Employer’ is only illustrative and not exhaustive [Dahingeapara Tea Estate v/s Their workmen 1956 I LLJ 187 (LAT)]. Nevertheless, the definition is so skillfully drafted that the Employers, whether Government or private are included. It is so clear from the fact that the Act has devised an elaborate machinery to resolve industrial dispute not only for the industries run by the Government and local authorities but also for the industries run by private persons [Western India Automobile Association vis I.T, 1949 I LLJ 245 (FC)].
Change of ownership ~ Successor-in-interest; The industrial Law, unlike the Civil law, treats the rights and obligations of workmen continuing even when there is a transfer of business
from one management to another even after the date of transfer, PROVIDED ALWAYS that 1. there is continuity of service and
2. identity of business [Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v/s its Workmen, 1958 II LLJ 660 (SC)j
The transfer of a business, ipso facto does not terminate the services and a purchaser, purchasing the business as going concern with all its assets and liabilities, is bound to continue the old employees on same emoluments, continuity of service and the same terms and conditions of the employment.