LexDES RAJ, ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
DES RAJ, ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.
APRIL 20, 1988
[RANGANAIB MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Whether Irrigation Department of
State Government of Punjab or Haryana is an 'industry' as defined in
Section 2(1)-0f
Each of these appeals by special leave was directed against the
award made by the Labour Court.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5415 of 1985, a foreman in the
Mechanical Constrnction Division under the Irrigation Department,
had filed an application nnder Section 33C-2 of the Industrial Disputes
D
Act, 1947 ('the Act') before the Labour Court for the recovery of
arrears of annual increments.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2168 of 1987 was a T. Mate in
the P.W.D. Drainage Division. When his services were terminated
without complying with the requirements of the law, he challenged the
E
termination before the Labour Court.
F
G
The appellant in the remaining appeal was an operator in the
Mechanical Division, under the Irrigation Department of Haryana
State. His services were terminated and thereupon he approached the
Labour Court challenging the order of termination.
In each of these cases, challenge was advanced by the Governmen-
tal authority to the maintainability of the application before the Labour
Court on the ground that the employer was not an 'industry' and the
Act did not apply. The Labour Court upheld the objection and declined
relief to the appellants.
Allowing the appeals with observations, the Court,
HELD: The common question in these appeals was whether the
Irrigation Department was an 'industry'. The definition of 'industry' is
given in Section 2(j) of the Act. By Section 2(c) of the Amending Act (46
H of 1982) this definition had been amended but the amendment has not
616
I .
1
DES RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB
617
yet been brought into force. Since the amended statutory definition was
not yet in force, the parent definition and the judicial pronouncements
thereon had to be referred to for finding the law. The field is covered by
pronouncements of this Court and is not necessary to go beyond the
precedents such as decisions in D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee &
Ors., [1953] SCR 302; State of Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital
A
~· Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., [1960] 2 SCR 866; Corporation of the City of B
Nagpurv. Its Employees, [1960] 2 SCR 942; ManagementofSafdarjang
Hospital v. Ku/dip Singh Sethi, [1971] SCR 177; and the decision of a
seven-Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.
A. Rajappa & Ors., [1978] 2 SCC 213. [621F-G]
In case the Irrigation Department was accepted to be an
"industry", there was no dispute that each of the appellants would be
a 'workman' and each of the claims would constitute an ''industrial
dispute" as defined in Section 2(s) and (k) of the Act, respec-
tively. [621G]
Judicial notice could be taken of the position that Haryana and
Punjab originally constituted one State and Haryana became separate
from i966. The Irrigation Department of the erstwhile Punjab State
was discharging the State's obligations created under the Northern
India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The Administration Report of the
year 1981-82 of the Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch,
which really deals with the Irrigation Department, was produced before
the Court. [634B-C]
Counsel for the appellants placed before the Court some cases of
different High Courts in support of his stand that the Irrigation Depart-
ment should be considered as an industry, i.e. Madhya Pradesh Irriga-
tion Karamchari Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [1972] LLJ
374; State of Rajasthan v. The Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, [1970]
RLW 137; Dinesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1983]
Bibar L.J.R. 207 and Chief Engineer, Irrigations Orissa v. Harihar
Patra & Anr., [1977] L.I.C. 1033. [638E-F]
c
D
E
F
On the tests, as already laid down in the judgments, the Court did
G
not think the facts found in this case could take the Irrigation Depart-
ment outside the purview of the definition of 'Industry'. The main
functions of the Irrigation Department where subjected to the Domi-
nant Nature test evolved by Krishna Iyer J. in Bangalor Water Supply
and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., [1978] 2 SCC 213, decided
by a seven-Judges Bench, clearly come within the ambit of industry.
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19881 3 S.C.R.
A
Perhaps keeping in view the observations Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.