EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5087, 5088 and 5089 of 1983 as the facts and the law to be discussed in these petitions are the same. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 5088 of 1983.

(2.) By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 23.11.1982 (copy annexure P/8) vide which respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "workman") was ordered to be paid one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was found by the Tribunal that the workmen were employed against "an estimate" and were work-charged employees and there was no work on which they could be reinstated. However, the employer was not satisfied with this award and hence these writ petitions.

(3.) The first question raised before me is that the petitioner is not an industry. The petitioner is Executive Engineer, Hathnikund Barrage, Division No. 2, Yamuna Nagar. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding this which is issue No. 2 i.e. whether the Irrigation Department is not an industry as defined in the I.D. Act. This question has been answered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jai Kishan and another, 2000 2 SCT 876. It has been held in that case that the contention that the Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana does not fall within the term "industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act could not be accepted. The said judgment is, therefore, a direct answer to this question which has been raised. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner is an industry and in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench, I do not find it necessary to discuss the issue further. I accordingly, uphold the finding of the Tribunal on the above issue.