The Executive Engineer(State of Karnataka) Vs. K. Somasetty & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3637 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15786 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15786 of 1996)
Petitioner: The Executive Engineer(State of Karnataka)
Respondent: K. Somasetty & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3637 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15786 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15786 of 1996)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 02, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. P. Mahale, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. T. Kanaka Durga, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Termination of service of daily wage paid respondent on closure of project – Held State is not industry under Industrial Disputes Act as held in State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Varma JT 1996 (2) SC 455.- Even otherwise project having been closed, respondent had no right to the post since he was appointed on daily wages – Order of Labour Court set aside and appeal allowed.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Termination of service of daily wage paid respondent on closure of project – Held State is not industry under Industrial Disputes Act as held in State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Varma JT 1996 (2) SC 455.- Even otherwise project having been closed, respondent had no right to the post since he was appointed on daily wages – Order of Labour Court set aside and appeal allowed.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma (JT 1996 (2) 455). (Para 3)
2. Union of India v. Jai Narayan Singh ((1995) Supp. 4 672) (Para 3)
2. Union of India v. Jai Narayan Singh ((1995) Supp. 4 672) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent was appointed on daily wages in a project taken up by the appellant on July 25, 1986. The respondent was discharged from the work on its closure on January 15, 1989. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On a reference, the Labour Court held that the respondent is entitled to continuity of service with back wages since it amounts to dismissal. The order was confirmed by the learned single Judge of the High Court subject to payment of 50% of the back wages. Writ Appeal No.878/96 was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is now well settled legal position that the Irrigation Department and Tele-communication Department are not an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of definition under the Industrial Disputes Act as held Union of India v. Jai Narain Singh (1995) Suppl 4. 672 and in State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma (JT 1996 (2) 455). The function of public welfare of the State is a sovereign function. It is the constitutional mandate under the Directive Principles, that the Government should bring about welfare State by all executive and legislative actions. Under these circumstances, the State is not an ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, since the Project has been closed, the respondent has no right to the post since he had been appointed on daily wages. It is brought to our notice that respondent has been reinstated. The order of the reinstatement has been placed before us which indicates that at the threat of contempt of Court, the order has been enforced. It is stated therein that it is subject to the final order of this Court in this appeal.
4. Under these circumstances, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Labour Court stands set aside. The order and judgment too stand set aside.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent was appointed on daily wages in a project taken up by the appellant on July 25, 1986. The respondent was discharged from the work on its closure on January 15, 1989. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On a reference, the Labour Court held that the respondent is entitled to continuity of service with back wages since it amounts to dismissal. The order was confirmed by the learned single Judge of the High Court subject to payment of 50% of the back wages. Writ Appeal No.878/96 was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is now well settled legal position that the Irrigation Department and Tele-communication Department are not an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of definition under the Industrial Disputes Act as held Union of India v. Jai Narain Singh (1995) Suppl 4. 672 and in State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma (JT 1996 (2) 455). The function of public welfare of the State is a sovereign function. It is the constitutional mandate under the Directive Principles, that the Government should bring about welfare State by all executive and legislative actions. Under these circumstances, the State is not an ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, since the Project has been closed, the respondent has no right to the post since he had been appointed on daily wages. It is brought to our notice that respondent has been reinstated. The order of the reinstatement has been placed before us which indicates that at the threat of contempt of Court, the order has been enforced. It is stated therein that it is subject to the final order of this Court in this appeal.
4. Under these circumstances, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Labour Court stands set aside. The order and judgment too stand set aside.
