GURSEWAK SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 23.04.2004 (Annexure P2), passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby it held that the respondent-Department, namely, the Agricultural Department is not an industry and accordingly, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-Department and rejected the reference. Accordingly, the issue on merit, whether the retrenchment of the petitioner was legal or not, was not decided. Present case is a classic case where the travails of the workman continue. The case of the petitioner-workman is that he had worked as a Laboratory Attendant from 04.07.1995 to 28.03.1996 and was drawing salary of Rs. 1195/- per month. Initially, an award was passed in his favour way back in 2002 and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages, vide an ex parte award. The said award was, however, set aside by the Labour Court inspite of the fact that it was notified in the Gazette on 04.04.2003, which would be apparent from the written statement filed by the State. However, it seems that the workman chose not to contest the setting aside of the said order. The matter was again put to trial and a preliminary objection was raised that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the Agricultural Department does not come within the definition of industry. The Labour Court has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court (Bathinda), 1994 106 PunLR 266 to decline the reference on the ground of maintainability.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Hissar v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hissar & another, 1997 2 LLJ 1183 to submit that the earlier Division Bench had also been considered along with the judgment of the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, 1978 AIR(SC) 548 to hold that the Forest Department was not exercising sovereign functions strictly and was an industry.

(3.) The Division Bench judgment on which reliance has been placed upon by the Labour Court had never taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply . Another Division Bench of this Court in Divisional Forest Officer Sirsa v. Jagdish, 2003 4 RSJ 264 has held that merely because of the activities of the Government Department are engaged in welfare works, it cannot be treated as falling outside the definition of industry unless it is proved that such activities are akin, inalienable and sovereign functions of the State. By holding so, it was held that the Forest Department would also come within the definition of industry and the Labour Court would have jurisdiction.