GURBHEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned single Judge vide which he allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 8125 of 1992 filed by respondent No.1 and quashed award dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure P -17) passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar (Respondent No.2).

(2.) THE appellant was engaged as Beldar in the Public Works Department of the Government of Punjab in June, 1981 on monthly wages of Rs. 405/ -. His service was terminated with effect from 1.6.1982. He raised a dispute questioning the termination of his service on the ground that he had not been given one month 's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. The Government of Punjab referred the dispute to Labour Court, Amritsar vide notification dated 7.9.1982. The same was registered as Reference No. 322 of 1982. During the pendency of the reference, the representative of the appellant made a statement on 11.10.1984 that as per the judgment of the Superior Courts "Public Works Department" is not an industry and, therefore, the workman does not want to pursue the reference and he would seek remedy in the proper forum. This statement appears to have been made because in State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh ILR (1982) 2 P&H 544, this Court had held that Public Works Department does not fall within the definition of industry under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act '). However, instead of rejecting the reference as not pressed, respondent No.2 dismissed the same for non - prosecution and passed award dated 11.10.1984, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: -

(3.) AFTER some time, the appellant again raised the dispute because in Des Raj v. State of Punjab 1988 I CLR 620 SC, the Honourable Supreme Court and in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1989 I CLR 273, a Full Bench of this Court held that "Public Works Department" falls within the definition of industry. He served demand notice dated 20.5.1988. The State Government referred the dispute to respondent No.2 vide notification dated 1.7.9.1989.