IMPORTANT POINT
The Dandakaranya Project having been completely wound up since 1990, the NMR workers should be entitled to compensation as provided u/s 25(fff) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in Industrial Disputes Case No. 13 of 1988 and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in 0-J.C. No. 2502 of 1990, where under the Qrissa High Court refused to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the award relates to different items of demand but in this appeal Mr. Reddy, the Additional Solicitor General restricted his submissions to the direction of the Tribunal to regularise 425 N.M.R. workers which were Item Nos. 1 and 3 of the workers union.

3. The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under Clause (d) of subsection (1) and sub-section (2)(a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect :

"Whether the following demands raised by Rehabilitation Employees Union of the management of Dandakaranya Project, Koraput, are Justified, if so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date."

4. Demands No. 1 and 3 with which we are concerned are as under :-

1. Regularisation of all muster roll workers who have been working from 1958 onwards after completion of 240 days with all consequential benefits of such regularisation.

3. Stoppage of retrenchment of all workers of Dandakaranya Project and absorption of all muster roll workers after their regularisation in other Central Government organisation through Central Government Surplus Celt as is done in case of regular employees of Dandakaranya Project."

5. The appellant management took the stand before the Tribunal that the reference itself was incompetent as the Dandakaranya Project is not an industry. So far as the demands of the N.M.R. workers are concerned, the management took the stand that the project itself having been wound up and there being no necessity for further continuance of the project which had been taken up by the Government of India on humanitarian consideration for rehabilitation of the refugees from Pakistan the question of regularisation of the N.M.R. workers does not arise. The Union on the other hand took the stand that the plea of the management that no work is available for the N.M.R. workers is not correct and as such, N.M.R. workers are being employed in several construction and irrigation works and, therefore, the project authorities have the obligation of regularising the service who have been working since 1950. The Industrial Tribunal negatived both the contentions raised on behalf of the management and came to hold that the project is an Industry. It further came to hold that the claim for regularisation of 425 N.M.R-employees is justified and they would not be retrenched and the project authorities through the Government of India should find out the ways and means to regularise them either under the Central Government or the concerned State Governments or under Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government. When the award of the Tribunal was assailed in the High Court by moving an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court came to the conclusion that the award does not contain any error of law which could be corrected by issuance of writ of certiorari in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly the Writ Petition filed by the Management stood dismissed.

6. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contends that the rehabilitation project undertaken by the Government of India to rehabilitate the refugees from Pakistan was in discharge of the sovereign function of the Government and, therefore, cannot be held to be an industry and consequently neither the reference was competent nor the Tribunal had any jurisdiction to examine the demands raised by the employees union. H