Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.09.2010 The Garrison Engineer (Utility) ...Petitioner Versus Narinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Central Government Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 1. RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 titled as The Garrison Engineer (Utility) versus Narinder Singh and another and Civil Writ Petition No. 3468 of 2009 titled as The Garrison Engineer, MES, Bathinda versus Triyogi Pandit and another . The Garrison Engineer (Utility), MES, Bathinda has filed this writ petition to impugn the award passed by Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. In the year 1993, the Government had referred the following dispute for adjudication:- “ Whether the action of Garrison Engineer (Utility), MES, Bathinda in terminating the services of Shri Narinder Singh S/o Shri Mehar Singh, Mazdoor w.e.f. 16.01.1987 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 2 workman is entitled to and from what date?” On 25.08.2003, the labour Court had passed an award after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service within one month. The said award was challenged by the petitioner through writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 02.05.2004. The petitioner thereafter, filed Civil Appeal No. 6144 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Court vide its order dated 21.05.2007 set aside the award and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal/Labour Court to decide the objection raised by the petitioner/management about the maintainability of the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. On remand of the case, fresh opportunities were afforded to both the parties to lead the evidence. The labour Court has now passed a fresh award holding that the respondent/workman was illegally terminated and is entitled to reinstatement on the post he was holding at the time of termination. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to challenge the award passed by the labour Court on 08.10.2008. The respondent-workman in Civil Writ Petition No.3468 of 2009 had joined service on 17.2.1983 and his services were dispensed with on 3.1.1987. He filed an Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 20.9.1993. His Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 10.1.1997. The petitioner then sent a demand notice but the Government declined to make reference of the dispute, it being time barred. The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No.18934 of 2005 before this Court and Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 3 so the reference followed. The Labour Court has now pronounced the award on 8.10.2008, directing his reinstatement like in CWP No. 1673 of 2009. . The issue about the maintainability of reference on the ground that the petitioner was not an industry has also been gone into and on the basis of law laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 548, it is held that this aspect would lose its significance. It has been viewed that to decide whether particular organization is an industry or not it is to be taken by the work done and business carried on by it which absolutely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference is then made to work carried by MES/petitioner, which is building docks, airfields etc. together with accessory services, such as roads, electric and water supply, drainage, furniture etc. and internal fixtures generally maintenance service i.e. repairs renewal and upkeep of work as maintenance and operation of certain installation. By making reference to all the functions, the labour Court has observed that these cannot be sovereign functions carried on by the petitioner and some of these functions are mentioned to be welfare activities. The labour Court has, accordingly, held that MES/petitioner is an industry for the purpose of adjudication of reference. No substantial submissions are made to dispute the finding returned by the labour Court. Otherwise also, the labour Court has held that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management and having held so it has also given a factual finding that the workman Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 4 had rendered more than 240 days of service without counting Sundays and paid holidays. Concededly, the workman had completed 237 days of service and by counting Sundays as holidays, the service of 240 days was complete. The directions to reinstate the respondent-workman are issued. What primarily weighed with the labour Court to direct reinstatement of the petitioner was the case of similarly situated employees. It may need a notice that the petitioner as well as some of the similarly situated employees had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against their termination, which application was dismissed. Against which, one Harmesh Lal approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed his reinstatement alongwith some other workman. All such employees, who were dismissed like the petitioner, were been taken back in service and reinstated. Referring to these orders, the labour Court has directed that the petitioner be also reinstated but without any backwages. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case where the similarly situated employees have been concededly taken back in service pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving any different treatment to the petitioner would be unfair. Merely because the petitioner was unable to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had sought reference of dispute before the labour Court, cannot lead to a different treatment for him. The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner to the judgments in the cases of Jaipur Development Authority versus Ramsahai and another (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases Civil Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2009 5 684, Ghaziabad Development Authority and another versus Ashok Kumar and another (2008) Supreme Court Cases 261, Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 575, Bhagwan Dass and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 579, State of M.P. and others versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 575, Madhya Pradesh Administration versus Tribhuban (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 748 and Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Versus N. Balakrishnan (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 755, to contest the reinstatement, thus, are not strictly attracted to the cases because of the peculiar background. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. September 14, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE