State of Punjab vs Bodh Raj and Another

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This bunch of eight writ petitions No. 8622 to 8629 of 1993 is directed against the same award of the Labour Court dated December 4, 1992 whereby the references made to it u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ''Act'') were answered in favour of the workmen-respondents and termination of their services was held to be illegal and the State of Punj ab was directed to reinstate them with full back wages from the dates of their respective demand notices.

The sole issue that was framed by the Labour Court was whether termination of services of the workmen was justified and in order. After recording evidence of the parties, the Labour Court found that the workmen-respondents had put in more than 240 days of service during the twelve calendar months preceding the date of their retrenchment. It was further found that the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with in as much as the workmen had not been issued one month''s notice nor were they given pay in lieu thereof and the compensation envisaged by the said provision had also not been paid to them. The termination of their services was, therefore, held to be illegal entitling them to reinstatement with full back wages.

These writ petitions which are directed against the aforesaid award of the Labour Court were admitted by the motion Bench because the learned State Counsel contended that the Public Works Department, Central Works Division (B&R) where the respondent-workmen were working as daily wagers was not an industry within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act and it is this issue that has been agitated before me at the time of final arguments, In support of his contention, learned State Counsel relied upon Full Bench judgments of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and Another, and in Om Prakash Vs. Executive Engineer, S.Y.L. Canal Division No. 7, I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that the state did not press this issue before the Labour Court and it appears that no evidence was led to show the nature of the activities of the Department. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the contention because the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kuldip Singh''s case (supra) was noticed by the later Full Bench in Om Prakash''s case (supra), and the later case became the subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court in Des Raj etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1988 II LLJ 149). The decision of the Full Bench in OmPrakash''s case (supra) was held to be not a good law and the Irrigation Department of the State Government was held to be an industry. The decision of this Court in Kuldip Singh''s case (supra) must, therefore, be deemed to have been overruled.

It was then contended by Shri Walia that respondent-workmen were daily wagers and were governed by the PWD Code. Clause (4) as mentioned in the Code specifically states that the service of a daily-wager could be terminated by the Engineer or Sectional Officer in charge at any time without assigning any reason. The argument is that the services of the workmen were terminated interm of a stipulation contained in their contract of employment and, therefore, the termination was covered by the exception contained in Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. I am afraid Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act is of no help to the petitioner because this clause was inserted in the Act by Act No. 49 of 1984 with effect from August 18, 1984 whereas the services of the respondent workmen were terminated in the year 1983.

No other point was raised.

In the result, there is no merit in these petitions and the same stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.