'V- •.. ":''*;3ti' •(? yw«t <ie IN THE HIGH CGURT OF JUDICA'EORE M.P.&T JAB&LPUR .- W.P.NO. ^.H1^''0/98 PETITION UNDER BR7ICE 226$227 OF 1HE CONSTIT[JTION_0:P_JNDIA, PETITIONER; .•:,^ State[6£ Madhya PradeB5—t5r5ug5~ Secretary, 'i'la.te'c Resources Department, M.P Bhopal:. ' .. . . 2. Executive Sngineer, ' . Dxv.is ion, No. 3 , -blasdeo Ganal pariyojaaa Janjglr,Bilaspur. 3. syb Divisional. offlcer, J.B..G,. Division 510.1, Janjgir, M.P» B.ilaspur . Versus RESPONDENTS: SatyaBarayao-RathoreS/o Chedilal, V lll'age ! Kboshba Tal-i.Janjgir,.Distfc.Bilaspiir. ^" &s X^^^, 2. Meraber Judge .."abour Court.Bilaspur "^- HIGH COURT QEjSHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 2496 of1998 Petiti.on.ers StateofMadhyaPFadeshaiul others Versus Respondents Satyaaarayan RatUore and aaother SIn^e Bench : Hou'ble Mr. Justi.ee Satish K. J^niiliotrl. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Depu<y Advocate Genend with. Sait Aaju Ahuja, Depuly Govt. Advocate for fhe petitioners. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (16tllJ(une,2006) The following order ofthe Court was passed by SaUsh K. AgnUiotri, J. 1. This petition impugns the award dated 25.5.1998 passed by fhe Labour Coiuf, Bilaspur in case No. 79/IDA/91 (Aimexure P/l) whereby the. respondent No.l was directed to be reinstated iu service withia a period of 30 days aud he was furttier graated 25% back wages. 2. The State has ffled this petition impngnmg fhe award on the ground fhat fhe Water Resoitrces Department is not an 'uidustiy', as such, theawardpassed bythe Labour Court was uicoiapeteiit. It is-now weU settled by a catena-of decisions that ifadepartanentofa GoiveriuBent is engaged in conunercial activities, the same be treated as 'indystiy'. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioncrs is not ia a position to explaia as to why 'fhe Water Rescwttces Departineat.is lilot aa - %idustay' when adiaittedty the dfipartment is engs^^ ^^s^ W'l • ^> activities which coines withia fhe pumew of conimercial activities. Even otfaerwise, this Court while admitting fhe petition for issuiag notice, declined to stay ffae operation offhe impugned award dated 25.5.1998. Itwas furfher directed that the petitioners would coinply with the award •within a peridd of six weeks 6om 22.7.1998. In view of the fact fhat fhe operation of fhe award was not stayed, the same must have been conipUed with by the petitiDners. At this ata^e it is not desirable to go iato the question as to whefher fhc Water Resources Department is an 'industiy' or aot. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of fhc case, this petitfon is disirussed. No ordcr as to costs. i SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Thakur •y I- •«.'