Case: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &amp; ORS Vs. SOMDUTT SHARMA

3. The respondent was initially appointed as a daily wage employee on the post of Helper in the Irrigation Department of the first appellant. His employment was terminated on 1st December 1995. On the directions of the Honble the Chief Minister, the respondent was taken back in service on 11th August 2004. But his employment was again terminated by an Order dated 2nd July 2005. A dispute was raised by the respondent which was referred by the appropriate Government to the decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act) was applicable. It was held that as compliance with section 25N of the ID Act was not made by the appellants, the respondent entitled to reinstatement.

Court's reasoning:
In the present case, there is no dispute that the Irrigation Department satisfied the test of having not less than hundred workmen employed on an average.9. We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. In paragraph 9 of the Judgment, the Labour Court held that as hundreds of employees are posted in Irrigation Department, provisions of Chapter VB will apply. However, the crucial question whether the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is a factory within the meaning of clause (k) of section 2 of the Factories Act, is not considered at all. Even the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not adverted to this aspect. The Division Bench in paragraph 8 of its judgment observed that Irrigation Department is responsible for creation and maintenance of irrigation potential through construction of Water Resources Department. It is also mentioned that it also looks after the calamity management work. It is stated that as the Irrigation Department is pumping water and sewage, it will be governed by sub-clause (ii) of clause (k) of section 2 of the Factories Act.10. The respondent has only relied upon sub-clause (ii) of clause (k) of section 2. The Irrigation Department, as noted in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment and order, looks after creation and maintenance of irrigation potential through construction of water resources projects. The Irrigation Department also deals with disaster management, calamity management, maintenance of flood control works, reservoir operations etc. None of these functions will attract the definition of Industrial Establishment. Even assuming that some of the employees may be doing the work of pumping of water, that is not sufficient to hold that Irrigation Department of the first appellant is carrying on manufacturing process. Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department will have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities. Few employees of the Irrigation Department out of several may be incidentally operating pumps. But the test is what are the predominant functions and activities of the said Department. Even if the activity of operation of pumps is carried on by few employees, the Irrigation department does not carry on manufacturing process. As it is not carrying on manufacturing process, it is not a factory within the meaning of clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the Irrigation Department of the first appellant will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L. Accordingly, Chapter VB will have no application in the present case.11. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli (supra). In the facts of the said case, the employees were involved in activity of pumping of water and therefore, the said decision is of no help to the respondent. As regards compliance with clause (F) of section 25 of the ID Act, Annexure P-1 is a copy of the notice dated 28th January 2012 issued by the Executive Engineer of Sindh Project Pucca Dam Division. It is a notice under section 25F of the ID Act addressed to the respondent. It is stated therein that in compliance with section 25F, a sum of Rs. 36,361/- was being transferred to his bank account mentioned in the notice. This fact is specifically pleaded in ground 5F of this petition.There is no counter filed by the respondent denying the fact of payment of compensation in accordance with Section 25F.12. The Labour Court as well the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court have not adverted to the question whether the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L. There is no finding recorded that the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is doing manufacturing activity as provided in sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act.