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