STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARI DASS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11791 and 13993 of 1996 can conveniently be disposed of together because the questions involved in both these petitions are identical.

(2.) STATE of Punjab assails the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar. The relevant facts in the case of State of Punjab v. Hari Dass and Anr. are that Hari Dass had alleged that he was employed as a Beldar in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) Provincial Division, Hoshiarpur on 10th August, 1990. He worked continuously upto 8th July, 1981. His services were terminated without any notice, charge -sheet or retrenchment compensation. He was getting Rs. 385 per month as his wages. He gave a demand notice and a reference was made to the Labour Court. The said reference was declined by the Labour Court only on the ground that the Public Works Department is not an industry. A fresh reference was made in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the Public Works Department is an industry. In the reply filed, State of Punjab has contested the same. It was insisted that the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman is stated to have not completed 240 days and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable. Plea was raised that the workman had been engaged for a specific period, for a specific job and, therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment.

(3.) SIMILAR were the facts in the case of Executive Engineer, Central Works Division, PWD B&R Branch, Hoshiarpur v. Hardev Singh. Herein, there was no earlier reference which had been declined. The learned Labour Court on 7th September, 1995 accepted the reference and set aside the order of termination. It was directed that he be taken back into service with continuity of service and with one third of the back wages with benefit of increments.