State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Meerut & Anr.

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

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 2671991 of the Labour Court, Meerut. A perusal of the said award showed 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 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 etc. v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC1182. Where the Irrigation Department as held to be Industry. In my opinion to 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 v. A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 has given a very wide meaning to the word industry in the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition is dismissed.