Executive Engineer vs Mukhtiar Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5087, 5088 and 5089 of 1983 as the facts and the law to be discussed in these petitions are the same. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 5088 of 1983.

By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 23.11.1982 (copy annexure P/8) vide which respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "workman") was ordered to be paid one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was found by the Tribunal that the workmen, were employed against "an estimate" and were work-charged employees and there was no work on which they could be reinstated. However, the employer was not satisfied with this award and hence these writ petitions.

The first question raised before me is that the petitioner is not an industry. The petitioner is Executive Engineer, Hathnikund Barrage, Division No. 2, Yamuna Nagar. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding this which is issue No. 2 i.e. whether the Irrigation Department is not an industry as defined in the I.D. Act. This question has been answered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jai Kishan and Anr. 2000(2) STC 876 (PH)(DB) : 2000(3) Rec SJ 42. It has been held in that case that the contention that the Irrigation Department, of the State of Haryana does not fall within the term "industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act could not be accepted. The said judgment is, therefore, a direct answer to this question which has been raised. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner is an industry and in view of the above judgment of the Division Bench, I do not find it necessary to discuss the issue further. I accordingly, uphold the finding of the Tribunal on the above issue.

The next question is regarding the termination of the workmen being not proper. The Tribunal has held that the services of the workmen were terminated but they were not paid retrenchment'' compensation. The Tribunal has referred to Section 25(a) of the Act. It is held that by virtue of Section 25(J) of the Act, Chapter 5-A would have overriding effect on any inconsistent provision in any other law. The finding of the Tribunal is quite in accordance with law. It is now shown as to how the finding is not correct.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. These writ petitions are, therefore, without merit and are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.