Full Judgment
R.S. Garg, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The State being aggrieved by, the Award dated 21-12-1998 passed in Reference Case No. 3/94 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea, deciding the reference in favour of 139 workmen holding that termination of these workmen was not proper and retrenched workmen were entitled to relief that the retrenched employees would be entitled to be reinstated with full payment of back wages and the allowances, has filed this petition.
3. The State has come to this Court inter alia pleading that the Water Resources Department concerned was not an Industry under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as the Division Bench judgment of this Court has clearly observed that the said department of the State is not an Industry, the Labour Court was not justified in making an Award in favour of the workmen. The second plank of the argument is that the workmen were in fact not workmen and their initial appointments were illegal, therefore; also the Labour Court was not justified in making the award in favour of the workmen.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent workmen on the other hand submits that the Judgment in the matter of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa, still holds field and as the Supreme Court has reiterated that the said Judgment holds good, the Labour Court was justified in making Award in favour of the workmen. It is further contended that but for ipse-dixi of the State Government that the appointments were illegal no substantial material were brought on record to justify the plea that the appointments were illegal right from inception.
5.I have heard the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the matter of 'Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State and Anr. v. Indira Devai P.S. and Ors.' : (1999)ILLJ 1109 SC has held that the Judgment in the matter of 'Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Boards v. A. Rajappa 1978 (1) SCC 213, was holding the field and further observed that the Judgment in the matter of Bangalore Water Supply did not need any reconsideration. This order was passed by the Supreme Court on a reference made by a Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. In the said matter of 'Bangalore Water Supply', the Supreme Court observed that Bangalore Water Supply was an Industry and the person employed with the Board was a workman. Applying the ratio of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board I have no hesitation in holding that the Department in question in fact is an Industry. The fist submission made by the learned Counsel for the State deserves to and is accordingly rejected.
7. So far as the illegality in the initial appointment is concerned, the State, in the opinion of this Court, has failed to bring on record any substantial material. If one witness appears and says that the appointments were illegal then that would not suffice. The State Government which otherwise is Almighty, had to produce material and relevant documents to show that the appointments were illegal, back door or contrary to the rules governing the said employment. In absence of any material on record, it is difficult to hold that the appointments of the retrenched employees were contrary to law or were illegal right from inception. The second plank of the argument deserves to and is accordingly rejected.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the matter.
9. The petition is, accordingly, rejected.