The court upheld the Labour Court's award of minimum wages and compensation for wrongful termination, asserting the need for procedural adherence under the Industrial Disputes Act.

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. 01 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, Irrigation Division, 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.

Arguments of the Respondent

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while opposing the prayer has submitted that this Court is exercising power of certiorari and the power of certiorari can be exercised under limited conditions.

5. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 (Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Others) paragraph 38 and in particular sub- paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgement to submit that none of the conditions mentioned therein is satisfied in the present case and therefore no interference is called for.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that not only the materials on record but also various judgments have been considered, and the impugned award cannot be said to be illegal or perverse with respect to the point of reference. The learned counsel has also submitted that the court while holding that the concerned workmen are entitled for compensation for removing them without notice and without following the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has entered into incidental question that was relatable to the terms of reference as the petitioner themselves had taken a stand before the learned court that the workmen were removed in terms of S