1. The petition has been filed against the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.302 of 1993. By this award, the Labour Court has rejected the Reference on the ground that the Irrigation Department against whom the reference was made was not an industry as defined u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The facts in the present matter fall within a narrow compass. The petitioner workman was employed as a watchman by the respondent at Chas. He worked from 21.4.1991 to 21.4.1992. His services were then terminated by an oral order. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Government. The Labour Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, held that the Reference deserved to be rejected. The Labour Court accepted the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent that the project of Irrigation Department on which the Petitioner was employed, was not an industry as :2: defined u/s 2(j). The Labour Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka v/s. Soma Shetty & Ors., 1997 II CLR 387 for drawing this conclusion. In view of this finding the Labour Court dismissed the reference.

3. Mr.Nighot, appearing for the petitioner, points out that the judgment in Soma Shetty's case (supra), is not applicable and that the Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra and projects of the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra fall within the definition of "industry". He fortifies his submission by relying on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Rebello, J.) in the case of Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division & Anr. v/s. Anant Yadav Murate & anr., 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 897.

4. On perusing the impugned award, it is apparent that the reference has been rejected only on the ground that the respondent is not an industry. In Anant Yadav Murate & Anr.'s case (supra), Rebello, J. while considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Soma Shetty's case (supra), has referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1182 and has observed that the judgment in the Soma Shetty's case (supra) is per incuriam. Rebello, J. has observed thus:

12. Therefore, while interpreting the judgment in Des Raj's case and Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) thus one necessarily will have to proceed on the basis whether the latter judgment in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) is per incuriam. A Full bench of this Court in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994 Mh. L.J. 1669 was faced with such a situation. The Full Bench of this Court noted that what is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is law declared by the Supreme Court. In the instant case and Des Raj's case the Irrigation Department of Punjab has been held to be an industry, based on the definition of Industry as it now stands, whereas applying the same definition the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) held it not to be an industry. In the case where the High Court is confronted with two conflicting judgments, the principles have been carved out as to which judgment to be followed when contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanate from benches of equal strength. After considering the various judgments and reproducing the various paragraphs from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Madanmohan, reported in A.I.R. 1988 Calcutta 1. The Full Bench of this Court concurred with the law as enunciated in Bholanath's case. The proposition that was accepted in Bholanath's case was if contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanate from benches of equal strength, the course to be adopted by the High Court is, firstly, to try to reconcile and to explain those contrary decisions by assuming, as far as possible, that they applied t