( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the State Industrial Court and State Labour Court. By this order, the connected Petition Misc. Petition No. 297 of 1974 (Gomti Prasad v. The Industrial Court, M. P. , Indore and others) is also disposed of, wherein also the prayer is for quashing of the orders of the State industrial Court and the Labour Court.

( 2. ) IN this petition, the petitioner Ajit Singh was employed as a driver on the Work-charged Establishment of the Construction Department of the bhilai Steel Plant from 6-5-1963 and his services were terminated with effect from 3-4-1968. In the connected case, the petitioner Gomti Prasad was also employed as a driver in the same department since 29-11-1963 and his services were terminated with effect from 31-3 1966. Both filed separate applications along with others similarly placed under section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial relations Act, 1960, before the Labour Court, Raipur. Their application were opposed by the respondent No. 3 and a preliminary objection was raised by the management that both were employed in the construction side of the steel Plant, which is not an industry within the meaning of the definition of industry under the Act. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on this objection and after recording evidence on the point, the objection was accepted and the applications were accordingly rejected by a common order. In revisions, the State Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour court by a common order. Both the Courts had relied on a decision of this court in Jamul Cement Works, Jamul v. President, State Industrial Court, M. P. , indore and others (1968 M PL J 95. ). It is now contended that the Construction Department is a part and parcel of the Bhilai Steel Plant and it is incidental and ancillary to the industry of Iron and Steel and in the alternative, the Construction Department comes within the meaning of engineering Industry as given in the Schedule to the Act.

( 3. ) THE respondent No 3 has opposed the petitions and supported the orders of the Courts below. It is submitted that the Work-charged Establishment of the Construction Department was a temporary department and it was entrusted with construction work of new units of the plant for expansion of the capacity of the Plant from 1 million to 2. 5 million tons. In the year 1966, the construction work was practically in the last phase as most of the units had been constructed and commissioned. The construction work was accordingly tapering off. The construction work was done for the requirements of the plant on no profit basis and could not be an industry. It was not done by way of trade or business. The management made every effort to deploy the employees working in the Construction Establishment and in fact the petitioners were provided with alternative jobs in the Border Roads Organisation, but it seems, the petitioners did not like the jobs and left the same. However, after receiving pay merits of all their dues, the present proceedings were started The petitions are liable to be rejected.

( 4. ) THE Courts below have found that the Construction Department only carries on such construction, which pertain to the Bhilai Steel Plant and which is aimed at affording facilities to the employees of the Plant. The works of the Banks, Posts and Telegraphs, Special Armed Police Force were undertaken for affording facilities to the Plant employees. Such works were constructed on the request of the parties concerned. The works were not carried on commercial lines and no profits were earned. Estimates of these works were prepared and tenders were invited and the works were given to the contractors for execution and cost of the works were recovered by instalments from the parties. The staff employed on the construction side supervised these works. Along with these works, certain works pertaining to the Plant were also ca