State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 25.7.1994 of the Labour Court, Meerut. A perusal of the said award shows that a finding of fact is recorded therein that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days, and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act has been violated as retrenchment compensation and notice pay was not paid to the workman concerned. As these are the findings of fact, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Learned standing counsel has contended that the Rural Engineering Service is not an industry. I do not agree with this submission in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Des Raj and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, . In my opinion, the decision of Des Raj''s case applies to the Rural Engineering Service also as it does systematic and organised activity and renders service and hence the Rural Engineering Service is an industry, particularly since the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, , has given a very wide meaning to the word Industry in the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition is dismissed.