STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHAGUBHAI JIVRAMBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions involve similar facts. We may therefore notice facts as arising from Special Civil Application No.1660 of 2006. The petition is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment of the Labour Court dated 13.6.2005 in Reference (LCK) No.442 of 1990. Respondent workman was engaged as a dailywager by the Irrigation Department for Dharohi Canal work as a watchman with effect from 21.6.1987. The case of the workman was that without following any procedure, without complying with the mandatory statutory requirements his services were terminated with effect from 31.5.1990 by an oral order. The workman therefore raised the said industrial dispute and sought reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment the Labour Court held that the termination of the workman was illegal, same was set aside. Directions were issued for reinstatement with 50% back wages. It is this award that is challenged before the High Court. Facts are similar in other petitions also. I am informed that this Court while admitting the petition had stayed the direction of back wages and not for reinstatement. The workman have been reinstated since then.

(3.) IT was contended before the Labour Court that the Irrigation Department cannot be treated as industry, it is rather late in the day to so contend in view of series of judicial pronouncements and in particular of the Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 and of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers & Forest Workers Union v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1488. In the case of G.F.P.G.F.W. Union (Supra) the issue was if a unit of the Forest Department would be an industry or not. The Court applied the triple test formula in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) and held that the activities of the department which were only administrative in nature and had nothing to do with any production and/or distribution of goods and services were not under consideration and the holding that the irrigation department is an industry has an obvious reference to the undertaking of the irrigation and canals works by the department that fell under consideration and not all the sections or units of the department which may be "non industry". The Court referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Des Raj, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1182 it was observed that the decision in case of Des Raj holds the field and the undertaking of irrigation work would be an industry under Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act.