SHYAM KUMAR S/O LATE JAI BHAGWAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 14.06.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman primarily on the ground that the PWD (B&R) is not an "industry" relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh and another, 1983 LabIC 83. On this basis, the Labour Court has further observed that the applicant is not a workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bodh Raj,1995 4 RSJ 284, to contend that this Court has, in a subsequent judgment relying upon a judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj v. State of Punjab, 1988 2 SLR 789, held that the judgment passed by the Full Bench, referred to above, is not good law and the same shall be deemed to have been over-ruled. In view of this, the counsel for the petitioner contends that PWD (B&R) is an "industry". He further relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Hari Dass, 1999 1 SCT 489, to contend that PWD (B&R) is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). That being so, he contends that as the finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has indeed completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months, therefore, the protection, as provided under Section 25- F of the Act would be available to the workman. The admitted position is that the said provisions have not been complied with, therefore, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof along with back wages.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has contended that the award of the Labour Court is fully valid as the reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court, which has not been specifically over-ruled by the Hon"ble Supreme Court and, therefore, still holds the field. He further contends that even if as has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the judgment whereof has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, is accepted that the PWD (B&R) is an "industry" still as the appointment of the workman was dehors the statutory Rules, reinstatement to the workman cannot be granted as it is a public post and at the most, the workman would be entitled to the compensation in the light of the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court.