Executive Engineer, Garhwal Jal Sansthan and Another vs Chhotey Singh and Another

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gopal Narain learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 workman.

Main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that being a daily wager the respondent No. 1 is not a workman within the meaning of the Act. The second contention is that as the workman worked under the contractor his service under the petitioners came to an end and, therefore, the impugned award not considering the aforesaid aspect is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that in view of the definition of workman in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act there is no bar to a daily wager to approach the Labour Court being treated as a workman. With regard to question of employment under the contractor relevant facts in the award have been referred to in support of the contention of the workman.

After considering the aforesaid aspects contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 could not be treated as workman within the meaning of the Act cannot be accepted particularly in view of the law decided in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh Butola 2000 I LLJ 1075 (SC).

With regard to the contention regarding contractors employment I find in the award a categorical finding has been arrived at after considering relevant materials on record. In such circumstance, I do not find any ground for interference with such findings of facts exercising writ jurisdiction.

On behalf of the petitioners on the question of law as to definition of Industry within the meaning of the said Act, contention has been made that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench which is pending before the Apex Court. Reliance was placed to such reference as contained in the judgment in the case of Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State and Another Vs. Indira Devi P.S. and Others, . With regard to this contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in this case decided on November 10, 1998 by larger Bench of three Members wherein the judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, decided by a Bench of seven Hon''ble Judges was expressed to have been held not required to be considered in terms of reference made by the Bench of two members as aforesaid.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is being made on the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.