The court ruled that the petitioner did not raise jurisdictional issues regarding its status as an industry, thus the Labour Court's award stands, except for the direction on regularization.

JUDGMENT:

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Reference Case No. 2 of 2013 wherein the learned labour court while answering the reference has held that the workmen are not entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but they are entitled for wages at the minimum of the pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. The learned labour court also held that the workmen are also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per head for removing them without notice and without following the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Arguments of the Petitioner

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned award has submitted that the learned labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the case in view of the fact the petitioner, who is Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Sikatiya, Deoghar, is ‘State’ and was discharging sovereign functions. Accordingly, the petitioner is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The learned counsel submitted that though the aforesaid point was not specifically raised before the concerned court but it is a point of law particularly in the light of the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 382 (State of Jharkhand through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division vs. Jwala Raut). The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs. State of Jharkhand) and has submitted that no material was produced on behalf of the concerned workmen to show that the activity of the petitioner was relating to any manufacturing or other related activities. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (State of Jharkhand vs. Their workmen, represented by Sichal Kamgar Union) to submit that this Court has framed the point of law and remanded the matter back to the concerned court for fresh consideration of the point, as to whether the division where the workmen were engaged i.e., irrigation department Sikatia is an ‘industry’ or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not an ‘industry’ and therefore the concerned labour court had no jurisdiction and consequently the impugned award is fit to be set-aside. He has also submitted that otherwise also the impugned award is not sustainable as the learned court has gone beyond the terms of reference.

4. In spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Findings of this Court

5. The terms of reference was as follows: -

“Whether, non-payment of equal pay for equal work and regularization of services of Shri Lakhan Tiwary (Typist), Shri Sagar Mohan Singh (Electrician), Shri Nakul Singh (Chaukidar) and Shri Bal Ram Prasad Singh (Chaukidar) by Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar is justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?”

6. The specific case of the workmen as per their written statement was that they were employed by the department before construction of Sikatiya Barage against sanctioned and vacant post on permission of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar. The land of the workmen was acquired for the project and they were provided employment being land looser. The workmen were removed from the service for some period and were taken back on duty from March 1999 and they were working. It was their case that by demand letter, they demanded equal pay and facilities like regular employees. It was their further case that workmen were paid up to 31.03.2009 and their salary after that period was due; all the workmen were entitled for regularization as they had completed more than 10 years of service and it was plea