Jharkhand High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Their Workmen Of Water Resources … on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 1544 of 2024
The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation
Division, Government of Jharkhand, Sikatiya, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar,
District Deoghar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workmen of Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division,
Sikatiya, Deoghar represented through it's President, Sichai Kamgar
Union, Chief Engineer Division, Kutchary Road, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar, District Deoghar ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
---
Reserved on 09.12.2024 Pronounced on 27.02.2025
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated
05.11.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Deoghar in Reference Case No. 01 of 2013 wherein the learned labour
court while answering the reference has held that the workmen are not
entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but they are entitled for wages at
the minimum of the pay scale extended to regular employees holding the
same post. The learned labour court also held that the workmen are also
entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per head for
removing them without notice and without following the procedure under
Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Arguments of the Petitioner
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while
assailing the impugned award has submitted that the learned labour court
had no jurisdiction to decide the case in view of the fact the petitioner,
who is Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya,
Deoghar, is ‘State’ and was discharging sovereign functions. Accordingly,
1
the petitioner is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel submitted that though the
aforesaid point was not specifically raised before the concerned court but
it is a point of law particularly in the light of the judgment passed by this
Court reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 382 (State of Jharkhand through
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division vs. Jwala Raut). The learned
counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in
2014 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs.
State of Jharkhand) and has submitted that no material was produced on
behalf of the concerned workmen to show that the activity of the
petitioner was relating to any manufacturing or other related activities.
The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this
Court in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (State of Jharkhand vs. Their
workmen, represented by Sichal Kamgar Union) to submit that this
Court has framed the point of law and remanded the matter back to the
concerned court for fresh consideration of the point, as to whether the
division where the workmen were engaged i.e., irrigation department
Sikatia is an ‘industry’ or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes
Act.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not an
‘industry’ and therefore the concerned labour court had no jurisdiction and
consequently the impugned award is fit to be set-aside. He has also
submitted that otherwise also the impugned award is not sustainable as the
learned court has gone beyond the terms of reference.
Arguments of the Respondent
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while
opposing the prayer has submitted that this Court is exercising power of
certiorari and the power of certiorari can be exercised under limited
conditions.
5. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 (Surya Dev Rai vs.
2
Ram Chander Rai & Others) paragraph 38 and in particular sub-
paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgement to submit that none of
the conditions mentioned therein is satisfied in the present case and
therefore no interference is called for.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that not only the materials
on record but also various judgments have been considered, and the
impugned award cannot be said to be illegal or perverse with respect to
the point of reference. The learned counsel has also submitted that the
court while holding that the concerned workmen are entitled for
compensation for removing them without notice and without following
the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has
entered into incidental question that was relatable to the terms of reference
as the petitioner themselves had taken a stand before the learned court that
the workmen were removed in terms of Section 25(F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
7. The learned counsel has further submitted that it was only another
department of the State Government who had referred the ‘industrial
dispute’ for adjudication, and now it is not open to the petitioner to
contend that the reference itself was not maintainable on the ground that
the petitioner was discharging sovereign function. He has also submitted
that there can be no straight jacket formula as to whether any department
of government is discharging sovereign function or not and whether it will
be covered within the meaning of ‘industry’ as defined under Industrial
Disputes Act. The petitioner having not taken such an objection before the
learned Labour Court cannot be permitted to raise such a plea before this
Court for the first instance. He has also submitted that such a question is
not a pure question of law rather it is a mixed question of fact and law and
it was for the petitioner to raise such a point before the learned court so
that the matter could have been adjudicated. He submits that in the writ
petition praying for certiorari, such new plea cannot be entertained and the
impugned award may not be interfered.
3
8. The learned counsel while referring to the judgment passed by this
Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (supra) has tried to
distinguish the same by submitting that in the said judgment, a plea was
raised by the department before the concerned court that they are not
‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act but the court did
not frame any issue to that effect and consequently the issue was framed
by this Court and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and on
the limited point and the award was set-aside.
9. The learned counsel submits that each case has to be seen on its
own facts and considering the points raised, the evidences adduced by the
parties, the learned court has granted a very limited relief to the concerned
workmen, inasmuch as, they have been held entitled for compensation @
Rs. 1,00,000/- per head and the learned court has also recorded that
although the workmen cannot claim for regularization of their services as
a matter of right, but their claim must be considered by the management if
cases of similarly situated persons have been considered and their services
have been regularized with a further rider that all such exercise should be
done at the earliest. It is submitted that the impugned award does not call
for any interference in writ jurisdiction as it neither suffers from any
illegality nor suffers from any perversity.
Findings of this Court
10. The terms of reference was as follows: –
“Whether, non-payment of due wages and regularization
of services of Sri Ranjho Hembrom, Hem Lal Kisku
(dead), Hriday Narayan Singh, Jaydeo Prasad Singh,
Girdhari Prasad Singh and Mohan Lal Singh (All
Chaukidar) by the Management/Employer, Executive
Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sikatiya,
Deoghar and Others is justified? If not, what relief they
are entitle to?”
11. The specific case of the workmen as per their written statement was
that they were employed with the permission of the department on the
post of Chaukidars before construction of Sikatiya Barage against
4
sanctioned and vacant post. The land of the workmen was acquired for the
project and they were provided employment being land looser except Hem
Lal Kisku who was employed on the ground of being a member of
scheduled tribe. The workmen were removed from the service for some
period and were taken back on duty from March 1999 and they were
working since then except Hem Lal Kisku who died before the reference.
It was their case that by demand letter, they demanded equal pay and
facilities like regular employees. It was their further case that workmen
were paid up to 31.03.2009 and their salary after that period was due; all
the workmen were entitled for regularization as they had completed more
than 10 years of service and it was pleaded that all the workmen are
entitled for regularization of their services as they had completed more
than 10 years and 5 workmen who were alive were entitled for
regularization, equal pay for equal work, and other facilities and the heirs
of the deceased workmen were entitled for arrears and other facilities.
12. The management in the written statement took a stand that after
construction work of barrage, the workmen were employed on need based
on different dates between 1976 to 1988 and such employment was
temporary and contractual and payment of daily wages was being made to
the workmen. The employment was not against sanctioned post and
required procedure, advertisement etc. was not followed. A reference was
made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 12448 of 1993 which was filed by some workmen wherein
the Hon’ble Patna High Court has passed a direction to take decision
whether the workmen could be regularized or not and in the light of the
judgment, Water Resources Department, Bihar vide letter No. 07 dated
01.04.1995 issued order to terminate the services of the workmen
employed after giving them notice in view of Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It was their further case that due to decrease in
workload the construction of work of the Barrage was stopped and
therefore the workmen were not required anymore and their services were
5
terminated from 01.02.1996 after payment of compensation and one-
month advance salary. It was their further case that after getting the letter
of termination, some workmen moved to Hon’ble Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 1225 of 1995 in which no relief was granted and it was only
observed that if the project work starts again and the State Government
choses to make appointment on daily wages then it might consider to
employ the workmen. The judgment in the writ petition was challenged in
L.P.A. No. 1251 of 1998 but the Hon’ble High Court refused to grant any
relief to the workmen. In the year 1998, when the construction work of
Ajay Barrage restarted then in the light of the previous judgment of the
Hon’ble Court as well as agreement of the workmen with Ajay
Coordination Committee, the workmen along with others were employed
in between the year 1999 to 2009 on daily wages basis and payment was
made to them. However, from 31.03.2009 no work is being taken from the
workmen due to decrease in work after end of construction work of the
Barrage. The specific case of the petitioner before the learned labour court
was that the workmen were employed in the light of the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court till completion of construction of barrage and after
completion of construction work, services of these workmen were no
more required and the matter of regularization of these workmen was not
pending before the Government. It was pleaded that compensation
regarding acquisition of land for barrage was already paid, so the demand
of regularization of the workmen was not proper.
13. The learned labour court framed the point of adjudication as per the
terms of reference. Both oral and documentary evidences were led by the
parties. The learned labour court after considering the materials on record
including the various judgments relied upon by the parties held as
follows:-
a) There cannot be any dispute that post in any
administrative government department is created and
sanctioned by the State Government by following some6
process and it is notified about number of posts so
sanctioned, nature of post as to whether it is permanent
or temporary or contractual or daily wages.
b) There is no material on record that post was sanctioned
by the State Government in construction of Ajay
Barrage and it was vacant and concerned workmen were
posted on that sanctioned post which was vacant at the
time of their employment.
c) The workmen have claimed to have been employed on
the vacant post but if post was not sanctioned by the
State Government there cannot be any question of
vacant post.
d) Although the appointment letter of the workmen has not
been brought on record either by the workmen or the
Management to show whether they were employed on
the ground of acquisition of their land in the
construction of Ajay Barrage at Sikatiya or otherwise
but it was admitted fact that they were employed in the
construction of said Barrage.
e) The project for construction of any Barrage has a life of
a fixed period or limited period and the workmen must
be aware of this fact. Therefore, they cannot claim
regularization of their services as a matter of right.
f) It was not the case of Management that the workmen
were part timer. On the contrary there was material on
the record that they worked full time alike regular
employees. Therefore, in the light of judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Others vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148,
the workmen are entitled for wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay-
7
scale), extended to regular employees holding the same
post.
g) It was contended by the Management that no work was
taken from the workmen after 31.03.2009 so no
payment was made to them from 01.04.2009. In this
regard, in the first part of employment the workmen
were removed from service after order and notice from
competent authority (Ext.-M-2 and Ext.-M-3) but no
such order or notice was brought on record by the
Management terminating the services of the workmen.
h) It further appears that payment till the period 31.03.2009
has been made to the workmen in the month of July or
August 2012.
i) There was no sufficient ground and reason to believe
that the workmen worked even after 31.03.2009 with the
Management.
j) It was admitted fact that services of the workmen were
not terminated in the second part of their employment
by following procedure contained under Section 25(F)
of the Industrial Disputes Act like their first part of
employment and such fact may have given reason to the
workmen to believe that their services have not been
terminated.
k) Although they are not entitled to due wages after
31.03.2009 but some compensation must be granted to
them for removing them from their duties without
following due procedure and without notice. In the facts
and circumstances, Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded to the
workmen.
l) With regard to regularization, it was held that the
workmen had worked for a continuous period of more
8
than 10 years and it was unrebutted evidence that in the
second part of their employment, they were employed in
the month of March, 1999 and the Management had at
least admitted that all the workmen worked till
31.03.2009 and as per Ext. W-12 at earlier occasion
services of some daily rated employees were
regularized. On this basis, the learned labour court held
that the workmen of this case are entitled for
consideration of their cases for regularization of their
services.
14. The learned labour court while answering the reference held that the
concerned workmen are not entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but
they were entitled for wages at minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest
grade in the regular pay-scale) extended to regular employees holding the
same post. This portion of the award does not call for any interference.
15. The learned labour court further held that the workmen or their
legal heirs would be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
for removing them without notice and without following the procedure
contained under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
labour Court also directed that although the workmen cannot claim for
regularization of their services as a matter of right but their claim must be
considered by the Management if cases of similarly situated persons have
been considered and their services have been regularized and all such
exercise should be done at the earliest.
16. The learned labour court has recorded a specific finding that it was
an admitted fact that the concerned workmen were employed in the
construction of barrage and the project for construction of any barrage has
a life for a fixed period or for limited period and the workmen must be
aware of this fact and therefore they cannot claim regularization of their
services as a matter of right. It was an admitted fact on record that the
construction of barrage was already complete and that the concerned
9
workmen had not worked after 31.03.2009, still the learned court directed
for consideration of regularization of their services. This Court is of the
considered view that on the face of the admitted fact that the concerned
workmen had not worked after 31.03.2009 and that the project has a fixed
period or limited period and the construction was over, there was no
occasion to direct the petitioner to consider the claim for regularization.
17. However, the learned court found that the required procedure for
termination in terms of Section 25F was not followed and awarded lump-
sum retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and at the same time
directed the petitioner to consider the claim for regularization.
18. This Court is of the considered view that once the compensation for
removal without following the procedure under Section 25F was allowed
and there was no direction of reinstatement, there was no occasion for the
learned court to direct the petitioner to consider the claim for
regularization particularly in view of the fact that the construction of
barrage was already over which was the reason for removal of the
workmen and for taking no work after 31.09.2009. Accordingly, the
direction of the learned court to consider the case of the workmen for
regularization is perverse and is accordingly set-aside.
19. While considering the jurisdiction of the learned court on the point
as to whether the petitioner is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Court finds that it was never the case of
the petitioner before the learned labour court that the petitioner is not an
‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and hence the
reference itself was bad in law. Rather the petitioner had fully contested
the case by adducing evidences and by relying upon various judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of the High Court. Before this court, it
has been argued for the first time that the petitioner [Water Resource
Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya, Deoghar] is a State and was
discharging sovereign functions and hence is not an ‘industry’ within the
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
10
20. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
(2001) 9 SCC 713 (State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh
Parmar), it has been held that if a dispute arises as to whether a particular
establishment or part of it wherein an appointment has been made is an
‘industry’ or not, it would be for the person concerned who claims the
same to be an ‘industry’ has to give positive facts for coming to the
conclusion that it constitutes an “industry”. It has also been held that
ordinarily, a department of the Government cannot be held to be an
‘industry’ and rather it is a part of the sovereign function.
21. This Court is of the considered view that there is no hard and fast
rule that establishment or the department of the State Government can
never be an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
Therefore, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a dispute
is raised that a particular establishment or part of it is not an industry,
then it is for the concerned workmen to lead positive evidence to prove
that the concerned department or the establishment is an ‘industry’ within
the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. This is so in view of the fact that
ordinarily, a department of the Government cannot be held to be an
‘industry’ and rather it is a part of the sovereign function.
22. However, in a case, as in the present one, when the petitioner did
not choose to raise such objection of dispute that the petitioner is not an
‘industry’ and contested the case by leading evidences and citing
judgments, it is not open to them to contend that for the first time in the
writ petition while challenging the award that the Water Resources
Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya, Deoghar is a ‘State’ and was
discharging sovereign functions and therefore is not an ”industry’ and
therefore the learned labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the case.
The petitioner neither challenged the reference nor challenged the
jurisdiction of the learned labour court before the concerned court. Had
such a dispute been raised, it was certainly for the workmen to lead
positive evidence to show that the petitioner was an industry within the
11
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court is of the view that
such a plea as to whether the department or the establishment is an
industry or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act is essentially
a mixed question of fact and law; such a question could have been decided
had the petitioner raised such plea before the learned labour court which
would have occasioned the workmen to adduce evidence to show that the
petitioner was an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
23. In the case of Jwala Raut (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, an
award was under challenge and the terms of reference was “whether the
termination of services of the workmen Sri Jwala Raut of the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Deoghar was justified and what relief he
was entitled to”. The learned labour court had set-aside the order of
termination and directed the State to reinstate Jwala Raut. The award was
challenged in writ jurisdiction. This Court recorded that from the Award,
it was evident that no finding was given by the Presiding Officer that the
Division where the workman was engaged i.e. Irrigation Division,
Deoghar, was an ‘Industry’, as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the learned labour court had not even determined
as to whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service
in the preceding calendar year and it was also held that in absence of
finding relating to exact period of service rendered by the workman, the
Award cannot be held to be complete. This Court observed that every
Department of the Government cannot be treated to be “Industry” and
when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of
“industry” to that extent stands excluded and ultimately held that the
question of reinstatement of workman on the same post with the same
service conditions and pay, as ordered by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Deoghar cannot be implemented, which will otherwise amounts to
giving regular appointment against a vacant post taking recourse of
Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12
24. In the present case, no such statutory rules governing the
recruitment of persons employed in the construction of barrage has been
exhibited before the learned court and it has come on record that Water
Resources Department had issued order dated 01.04.1995 to terminate the
services of the workmen after giving them notice under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and after termination they were re-
employed on daily wages. In CWJC No. 1225 of 1995 filed by some of
the workmen, no relief was granted and it was only observed that if the
project work was again started and the State government felt to make
appointment on daily wages, it might employ those workmen. It has come
on record that when the construction work was restarted, the concerned
workmen were reemployed between the period 1999 to 2000 on daily
wage basis and from 31.03.2009 no work was being taken upon
completion of construction. The evidence of the petitioner before the
learned court clearly demonstrates that they have treated themselves as an
industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and had earlier
taken steps to terminate the services by referring to Section 25F of
Industrial Disputes Act then reemployed the workmen but this time
provisions of Section 25F was not followed. Therefore, the argument
advanced before the learned court that there was no advertisement etc. has
no consequences and the judgment of Jwala Raut (supra) does not apply
to the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, in the said case of
Jwala Raut (supra), the workmen could not prove that they had
completed 240 days of continuous service prior to their termination and an
order of reinstatement was passed on the same post with same service
conditions and pay and it was held by this Court that such a direction
would amount to giving regular appointment against a vacant post taking
recourse of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case,
no such direction of reinstatement has been passed and even the direction
to consider for regularization has been set-aside as the construction of
barrage has been completed. This Court is also of the view that in absence
13
of any plea having been raised by the petitioner before the learned labour
court that the petitioner is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of
Industrial Disputes Act and in absence of any such declaration by this
Court in the aforesaid judgment that under no circumstances, the
department of the Government can be treated as an ‘industry’, the
aforesaid judgment of Jwala Raut (supra) does not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case.
25. So far as the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 SCC
OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs. State of
Jharkhand) is concerned, the only point which fell for consideration
before this Court was “whether the Minor Irrigation Department of the
State of Jharkhand is to be considered as an industry.” In the said case,
the order passed by the learned writ court whereby the award was set-
aside was under challenge. The Court considered the judgments passed in
the case of Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union v. Tata Memorial
Centre reported in (2010) 8 SCC 480 wherein it was held that merely
because the government companies, corporations and societies are
instrumentalities or agencies of the government, they do not become
agents of the Central or the State Government for all purposes. The Court
in the case of Pranaya Kumar Srivastava (supra) also considered the
judgment passed in the case of The Management of Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi v. Kuldip Singh Sethi reported in (1970) 1 SCC 735 wherein it
has been held that every case of employment is not necessarily productive
of an ‘industry’ and it has been held that domestic employment,
administrative services of public officials, service in aid of occupations of
professional men, also disclose relationship of employer and employee but
they cannot be regarded as in the course of industry. A reference was also
made in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (supra). The Hon’ble
Division Bench ultimately recorded that in the facts of that case, no
material was produced by the workmen to show that the Minor Irrigation
14
Department had multipurpose activity and was also engaged in
manufacture and other related activities and held that the Minor Irrigation
Department being a government department, the recruitment/appointment
was governed by statutory rules and therefore the learned Single Judge
rightly held that Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not
applicable. The Court also vide paragraph 11 distinguished the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 2 SCC 537 (Des
Raj Vs. State of Punjab) which referred to various examples concerning
the irrigation projects in other States like Madhya Pradesh and, Rajasthan
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that those Irrigation Projects
were multipurpose one and were used for generating electricity as also for
irrigation purposes and on those facts, the concerned High Court had
come to the conclusion that irrigation department of those States fall
within definition in Section 2(j) of the Act. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid
judgment Pranaya Kumar Srivastava (supra) is quoted as under: –
“11. In the case at hand, no material has been produced by the
appellants-workmen to show that the Minor Irrigation
Department has got multipurpose activity and also engaged in
manufacture and other related activities. Paragraph 10 of the
Des Raj case : ((1988) 2 SCC 537 : AIR 1988 SC 1182) (supra)
refers to the various examples concerning the irrigation projects
in other States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan. In paragraphs
10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while referring to the irrigation projects of Madhya Pradesh and
Rajasthan, pointed out that those Irrigation Projects were
multipurpose one and were used for generating electricity as
also for irrigation purposes and on those facts, the High Court
came to the conclusion that irrigation department of those States
falls within definition in Section 2(j) of the Act.”
26. In the present case, the aforesaid judgment does not apply,
inasmuch as, the petitioner never raised a plea before the learned labour
court that it was not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act and the petitioner had further themselves raised specific plea
that on earlier occasion, they had followed Section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act to discontinue the services of the concerned workmen and
15
also claimed that on subsequent occasion also, they had followed the
provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act but the petitioner
failed to prove so before the learned labour Court. In view of the aforesaid
facts of this case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner Pranaya
Kumar Srivastava (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case.
27. So far as the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Jhar. 3052 (State of Jharkhand vs. Their workmen, represented
by Sichal Kamgar Union) is concerned, this Court has specifically
recorded that the petitioner had raised the issue before the learned labour
court as to whether the Irrigation Department, Sikatiya was an ‘industry’
as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the
learned labour court did not return any finding on such an issue and
consequently, the matter was remanded to the court concerned for
deciding the issue. The said judgment will not have any bearing in the
present case in view of the fact that the petitioner did not raise an issue
before the learned labour court that the petitioner is not an industry within
the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
28. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the approach of the learned
labour court to decide the case on merits in which both the parties duly
participated. The award cannot be said to have been passed without
jurisdiction. It is not open to the petitioner to raise new plea before this
Court in writ jurisdiction particularly when the issue as to whether the
petitioner is an ‘industry’ or not was never raised before the learned court
and such an issue cannot be said to be a pure question of law as argued by
the petitioner.
29. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned
award does not call for any interference, except to the extent it relates to
direction regarding considering the case of the concerned workmen for
regularization which has been set-aside vide paragraph 18 of this
judgement.
16
30. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
31. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Mukul/AFR
17
[ad_1]
Source link