WP/6107/2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6107 OF 2005 Baban Laxman Jadhav ... Petitioner V/s. The Executive Engineer, Nira Ujawa Kalawa, Phaltan, Satara ... Respondent Mr. Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay D. Patil for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Solapur, in Reference (IDA) No.71 of 1996. The main reason for rejection of the Reference is that the Labour Court has found that the respondent, i.e. the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra, is not an “Industry” in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka vs. K. Somasetty & Ors., reported in 1997 II CLR 387. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference on the basis of the aforesaid judgement. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Watchman with the respondent, which is a part of the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra. He was terminated from service. A demand was raised by the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back­wages, which was referred for WP/6107/2005 2 adjudication in Reference (IDA) No.71 of 1996. Pleadings were filed by the parties. In its application at Exhibit “C­5”, the respondent contended that it is not an “industry”, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by placing reliance on the judgement in the case of Somasetty (supra). The Labour Court accepted this contention and dismissed the Reference. Hence the present Petition. 3. In the case of Executive Engineer, Yavatmal, Medium Project Division vs. Anant Yadao Murate & Ors., reported in 1998 I CLR 403, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Rebello, J., as he then was) has, after considering the judgement of the Supreme Court in Somasetty’s case, held that the Irrigation Department of the State Government is an “Industry”, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the basis of the nature of work which the petitioner in that case has undertaken, namely projects of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, it has been held that the Irrigation Department of the State Government is an “Industry”. The learned Judge has considered the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa & Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC 548, Chief Conservator of Forests & Anr. vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Ors., reported in 1996 I CLR 680 and in Somasetty’s case and has concluded that the Irrigation Projects of the State of Maharashtra are “Industries”, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. WP/6107/2005 3 4. A similar view has been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court Bhosale J. in the case of Shashikant Govind Malgaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 437. 5. In my opinion, therefore, the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the Reference. There can be no doubt today that the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra and the projects undertaken by the Department are “Industries”, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The impugned Award dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Solapur, in Reference (IDA) No.71 of 1996 is set aside. 7. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The Reference (IDA) No.71 of 1996 is remanded to the Labour Court, Solapur, to decide it afresh on the merits of the case. 8. Parties are permitted to lead additional evidence, if so advised. 9. The Labour Court, Solapur, shall decide the Reference (IDA) No.71 of 1996 within a period of six months from today. 10. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.