Gokal Chand Mital, J.:— Counsel for the parties are agreed that ??? point is involved in C.W.P Nos. 3866 of 1976 and 4485 of 1975 and both can be disposed of together.
2. The only point involved is whether the Irrigation and Public Works Department of the State would come within the definition of ‘industry’ contained in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Thereinafter called the Act or not. This matter has authoritatively been now ??? by a large Bench of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 : A.I.R 1978 S.C 548. against the state and in favour of the workman. The relevant head-note Reserves to be reproduced below:—
“The dominant nature test:—
Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not ‘workmen’ or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments will be true test. The whole undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those who are not ‘workmen’ by detrition may not benefit by the status.
Sovereign functions, strictly understood (along) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies.
Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within S. 2(j).
3. A reading of the aforesaid passage bears out that a workman employed in the Irrigation and Public Works Departments of the State Government would clearly fall within the definition of ‘industry’ and therefore, would in a workman covered by the Act. It has not been shown that she two ??? workmen in these writ petitions are in any way carrying on sovereign functions qualifying for exemption according to he aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.
4. On the other hand, the Labour Court has found that the workman in C.W No. 3866 of 1976 was employed in the Stores Procurement Division, Drainage Administration, Punjab, Chandigarh, which is a Welfare Department providing for flood ??? and anti-logging arrangement where the workman had to grease the p-cups and had to do the job of loading and unloading and transporting and for such of the management used to charge 5% as handling charges from its own departments and 10% supervision charges and 27½% departmental charges from other ??? of Government. As regards the other case, no such point was raised before the Lab Court and as such the workman could not produce any evidence to show that the Public Works Department was an ‘industry’ and the point has been raised for the first time in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision will govern this casa also a the second case, no argument has been raised against the award of the Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the workman was no justified.
5. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in any of these writ petitions and dismiss the same but without any order as to costs.
6. Petition dismissed.