D.M. Dhannadhikari, J.--1. A common order is being passed in this petition and the connected petition being M.P. No. 1711/91 as the two cases involve a common question of law.

2. The two workmen-deceased Ramsumiran and Chandrabhar who are respondents in the two petitions, were the employees in the Central Ordnance Depot of the Union of India. The workmen were the employees under the Union of India in its Defence establishment. Their services were terminated by the two separate orders by giving the one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1955 (shortly referred to as 'the Rules of 1966 ). The workman approached the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum:-Labour Court, Jabalpur by way of reference for adjudication of the dispute about their termination of services under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by the two awards impugned in these two petitions set aside the termination of services of the workman holding that they have been illegally retrenched without payment of compensation in contravention of the provisions contained in section 25-J of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (shortly referred to as 'the Act'). The Labour Court directed their reinstatement in service with full back wages.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India in these two petitions have raised two common grounds to assail the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The first ground raised is that the Central Ordnance Depot, where the workmen were employed, is not an industry, as defined in section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the termination of the services of the workmen and to direct their reinstatement. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. A. Rajappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 548). The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the services of the workman as Central Govt. servants were governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India• and the Rules exclude completely application of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Govt. employees. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on a decision of Kerala High Court reported in Director of Postal Services (South) Kerala Circle, Trivendram and another v. K.R.S. Kaimal and another (1984 Lab. I.C. 628).

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman in his reply to the first ground urged that the Central Ordnance Depot is covered by the definition of 'Industry' under section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He relies on the decision of this Court in M.P. No. 1069/93, decided on 21.3.84 (Rajendra Naidu v. Union of India & others). In the aforesaid case, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board (supra), the Ordnance Factory of the Union of India at Khamaria in Jabalpur is held to be covered by the definition of 'industry'. The learned counsel for the workman also relies on the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Soundarajan & others v. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi S.L.R. (Factory and Labour Reports) 1994 Vol. 68 Page 1225. The Madras High Court has held that the Central Ordnance Depot is covered by the definition of 'industry'. The contention advanced on behalf of the workman is that the Central Ordnance Depot is established for the defence and security of the nation; but carries on industrial activities of the Government in discharge of its sovereign function. It satisfies the triple test applied by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board (supra), it has to be held as 'industry' being a separ