STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the construction and maintenance of National and State Highways by the State comes within the ambit of "industry" as defined in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act is the common and the core question in this set of cases which have been referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the identical and pristinely legal question herein this judgment would govern all these cases. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts in C. W. P. No. 2826 of 1981 -State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh. Kuldip Singh, respondent workman therein was appointed on ad hoc basis as a Sectional Officer in the Mechanical Circle of the Building and Roads Branch of the Public Works Department, Patiala, on the May 25, 1973. Vide letter P. 1 the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary and liable to be terminated without notice on either side and further it was for only six months or till the date of the joining of a candidate recommended by the Departmental Committee whichever was earlier. In accordance therewith the services of Shri Kuldip Singh respondent were terminated vide annexure P. 4 and he was relieved of his duties on June 30, 1976. Nearly three years later on the January 30, 1979, the respondent workman made an application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, claiming re-instatement with continuity in service with full back wages on his old terms and conditions. His claim was controverted and on the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference? 2. Whether the respondent is not an industry as definded in the Industrial Disputes Act? 3. Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act? 4. Whether the termination of services of the workman was justified and in order? 5. Relief. Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were dealt with together by the Labour Court and relying primarily on the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Hoard v. A. Rajappa 1978-I L. L. J. 349 it concluded as follows: Since P. W. D. B. and R is held to be an industry and claimant to be a workman so any dispute arising between the management and the workman would be covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, which matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Thus I decide all the three issues against the management. Proceeding further on merits under issue No. 4 also it was held that the services of the respondent could be terminated only after paying him retrenchment compensation and since this has not been done the said order of termination was not valid. Consequently the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service was granted to the respondent-workman but in view of the fact that he was only a temporary employee he was not allowed any back wages. The State of Punjab has preferred the writ petition and strenuously challenged the findings of the Labour Court. On the other hand in C. W. P. No. 1227 of 1981, Kuldip Singh workman has sought the added relief of full back wages as well.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties Had straightaway come to grips with the crux of the matter herein, namely, whether the governmental activity of the construction of National or State Highways and their maintenance comes within the ambit of an "industry". On behalf of the workmen the ancillary and the alternative question raised was that in any case the mechanical wing of the Building and Roads Branch utilising and maintaining the road building machinery would at least be within its scope,