Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the award dated 23.1.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2.
3. Briefly stated that the respondent No. 1 had been working on the post of part time Sweeper since 1982 under the control of Executive Engineer, Lakhwar Construction Dam Division-II, Dak Pathar, Dehradun on Rs. 75/- per month. The respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute in the year 1998 and conciliation proceedings were initiated. After failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Dehradun. The reference has been made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Act, 1947 by the Stale Government before the Labour Court to the following effect:
D;k lsok;kstd }kjk viuh efgyk Jfed Jherh Qwyorh in va'kdkfyd Lohij dks iw.kZdkfyd Lohij u cuk;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugh rks laacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k ikus dh vf/kdkjh.kh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgrA
4. Both the parties had filed their respective written statements before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record held that Smt. Phoolwati was employed as part time Sweeper in 1982 and since then she was working regularly and at one time she is doing work at three places and was getting only Rs. 75/- per month. The Labour Court vide award dated 22.3.2001 directed the opposite parties petitioners to appoint the respondent No. 1 as full time Sweeper in their establishment.
5. The Standing Counsel for the State has raised objection that since the Irrigation Department is not cover within the meaning of industry and as such the dispute cannot be referred to the Labour Court.
6. So far as the Irrigation Department being an industry is concerned this Court in the case State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. 2003 (96) FLR 317, has held as under:
The Apex Court in Des Raj and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. after applying the aforesaid text on the nature and activities carried on by the Irrigation Department held that Irrigation Department is an Industry.
Since the Kalagarh unit is the branch of Irrigation Department, therefore, the wine is also Industry within the definition of 'Industry' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in view of the law laid dawn by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa's case.
7. It is a ease where Article 21 of Constitution of India is being attracted. Every citizen has a right to live with dignity. Irrespective of the fact that the employee concerned happened to be a Sweeper labour and industrial law, therefore, safeguards the exploitation of manual labour by providing protection in the employment. When protection has been given to the employee concerned by virtue of Standing Order, he is fully entitled to utilise the same. Right to life has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar 2003 (98) FLR 329 (SC) : 2003 (7) AIC 16 (SC). The observations of the Apex Court are as under:
The right to development in the developing countries is itself a human right. The same has been made a part of WTO and GATT. In 'The Word Trade Organisation, Law, Practice, and Policy (Oxford) by Mathusushita Schoenbaum and Mauroidis' at page 339, it is stated:
The United nations has proclaimed the existence of a human right to development. This right refers not only to economic growth but also to human welfare, including health, education, employment social security, and a wide-range of other human needs. This human right to development is vaguely defined as a so called third generation human right that cannot be implemented in the same way as civil and political human rights. Rather, it is the obligation of states and intergovernmental organizations to work within the scope of their authority to combat popery and misery in disadvantaged countries.* * * * * *
In State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and Ors., it was opined.
16. The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court is Unni Krishnan case to provide, free dedication to the children upto the age of fourteen-cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity of financial incapacity.
The States of India are welfare States. They having regard to the constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India and in particular Part-IV thereof laying down the Directive Principles of the State Policy and Part IV-A laying down the Fundamental Duties are bound to preserve the practice to maintain the human dignity.
8. I find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Let the award be complied forthwith. No order as to costs.