IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.734 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Construction Division, Narkatiaganj Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Versus 1. AMRISH CHANDRA PRASAD son of Sri Hari Narayan Prasad, residentof village Sheoganj, Ward No. 8, P.O. and P.s. Narkatiaganj, District West Champaran. 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Motihari. ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Anwar Karim, A.C. to S.C. V For Respondent no. 1 :- M/S. Rupak Kumar & Nishant Kumar ------- 4 24/12/2009 I.A. No. 3447 of 2009: This is an application for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring this appeal. Having heard Mr. Anwar Karim, learned counsel for the appellant State and Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and upon perusal of the assertions made in the application for condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause does exist for condoning the delay and, accordingly, it is so ordered. I.A. No. 3447 of 2009 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 734 of 2009 : As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up this appeal for admission. Admit. On - 2 - consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. Challenging the legal propriety of the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3586 of 2001 the present intra court appeal has been preferred. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is manifest that he has negatived the stand of the State government that the Irrigation Department is not an industry on the basis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 S.C., 518. We also note that a Full Bench of this Court in Bijoy Kumar Bharti and others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, 1983 PLJR, 667 (FB.) relying on the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) has expressed the view that the Irrigation Department is an industry. Apart from the above, it is worth noting that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has passed the order on the ground that the employer has retained the juniors and terminated the services of the seniors. In our considered opinion, the view - 3 - expressed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely impeccable which does not warrant any interference. Resultantly the appeal being sans merit, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. AMIN (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)